ted演讲稿范文4篇_演讲稿

ted演讲稿范文4篇

i was one of the only kids in college who had a reason to go to the p.o. box at the end of the day, and that was mainly because my mother has never believed in email, in facebook, in texting or cell phones in general. and so while other kids were bbm-ing their parents, i was literally waiting by the mailbox to get a letter from home to see how the weekend had gone, which was a little frustrating when grandma was in the hospital, but i was just looking for some sort of scribble, some unkempt cursive from my mother.

and so when i moved to new york city after college and got completely sucker-punched in the face by depression, i did the only thing i could think of at the time. i wrote those same kinds of letters that my mother had written me for strangers, and tucked them all throughout the city, dozens and dozens of them.

i left them everywhere, in cafes and in libraries, at the u.n., everywhere. i blogged about those letters and the days when they were necessary, and i posed a kind of crazy promise to the internet: that if you asked me for a hand-written letter, i would write you one, no questions asked. overnight, my inbox 1 / 42

morphed into this harbor of heartbreak -- a single mother in sacramento, a girl being bullied in rural kansas, all asking me, a 22-year-old girl who barely even knew her own coffee order, to write them a love letter and give them a reason to wait by the mailbox.

well, today i fuel a global organization that is fueled by those trips to the mailbox, fueled by the ways in which we can harness social media like never before to write and mail strangers letters

when they need them most, but most of all, fueled by crates of mail like this one, my trusty mail crate, filled with the scriptings of ordinary people, strangers writing letters to other strangers not because they're ever going to meet and laugh over a cup of coffee, but because they have found one another by way of letter-writing.

but, you know, the thing that always gets me about these letters is that most of them have been written by people that have never known themselves loved on a piece of paper. they could not tell you about the ink of their own love letters. they're the ones from my generation, the ones of us that have grown up into a world where everything is paperless, and where some of our best conversations have happened upon a screen. we 2 / 42

have learned to diary our pain onto facebook, and we speak swiftly in 140 characters or less.

but what if it's not about efficiency this time? i was on the subway yesterday with this mail crate, which is a conversation starter, let me tell you. if you ever need one, just carry one of these. (laughter) and a man just stared at me, and he was like, \"well, why don't you use the internet?\" and i thought, \"well, sir, i am not a strategist, nor am i specialist. i am merely a storyteller.\" and so i could tell you about a woman whose husband has just come home from afghanistan, and she is having a hard time unearthing this thing called conversation, and so she tucks love letters throughout the house as a way to say, \"come back to me. find me when you can.\" or a girl who decides that she is going to leave love letters around her campus in dubuque, iowa, only to find her efforts ripple-effected the next day when she walks out onto the quad and finds love letters hanging from the trees, tucked in the bushes and the benches. or the man who decides

that he is going to take his life, uses facebook as a way to say goodbye to friends and family. well, tonight he sleeps safely with a stack of letters just like this one tucked beneath his pillow, 3 / 42

scripted by strangers who were there for him when. these are the kinds of stories that convinced me that letter-writing will never again need to flip back her hair and talk about efficiency, because she is an art form now, all the parts of her, the signing, the scripting, the mailing, the doodles in the margins. the mere fact that somebody would even just sit down, pull out a piece of paper and think about someone the whole way through, with an intention that is so much harder to unearth when the browser is up and the iphone is pinging and we've got six conversations rolling in at once, that is an art form that does not fall down to the goliath of \"get faster,\" no matter how many social networks we might join. we still clutch close these letters to our chest, to the words that speak louder than loud, when we turn pages into palettes to say the things that we have needed to say, the words that we have needed to write, to sisters and brothers and even to strangers, for far too long. thank you. (applause) (applause)

TED英语演讲稿：让我们来谈谈死亡ted演讲稿范文（2） | 简介：我们无法控制死亡的到来，但也许我们可以选择用何种态度来面对它。特护专家peter saul博士希望通过演讲帮助人们弄清临终者真正的意愿，并选择适当的方式去面对。

4 / 42

look, i had second thoughts, really, about whether i could talk about this to such a vital and alive audience as you guys. then i remembered the quote from gloria steinem, which goes, \"the truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off.\" (laughter) so -

- (laughter)

so with that in mind, i'm going to set about trying to do those things here, and talk about dying in the 21st century. now the first thing that will piss you off, undoubtedly, is that all of us are, in fact, going to die in the 21st century. there will be no exceptions to that. there are, apparently, about one in eight of you who think you're immortal, on surveys, but -- (laughter) unfortunately, that isn't going to happen.

while i give this talk, in the next 10 minutes, a hundred million of my cells will die, and over the course of today, 2,000 of my brain cells will die and never come back, so you could argue that the dying process starts pretty early in the piece. anyway, the second thing i want to say about dying in the 21st century, apart from it's going to happen to everybody, is it's shaping up to be a bit of a train wreck for most of us, unless we do something to try and reclaim this process from the rather inexorable trajectory that it's currently on.

5 / 42

so there you go. that's the truth. no doubt that will piss you off, and now let's see whether we can set you free. i don't promise anything. now, as you heard in the intro, i work in intensive care, and i think i've kind of lived through the heyday of intensive care. it's been a ride, man. this has been fantastic. we have machines that go ping. there's many of them up there. and we have some wizard technology which i think has worked really well, and over the course of the time i've worked in intensive care, the death rate for males in australia has halved, and intensive care has had something to do with that. certainly, a lot of the technologies that we use have got something to do with that.

so we have had tremendous success, and we kind of got

caught up in our own success quite a bit, and we started using expressions like \"lifesaving.\" i really apologize to everybody for doing that, because obviously, we don't. what we do is prolong people's lives, and delay death, and redirect death, but we can't, strictly speaking, save lives on any sort of permanent basis.

and what's really happened over the period of time that i've been working in intensive care is that the people whose lives 6 / 42

we started saving back in the '70s, '80s, and '90s, are now coming to die in the 21st century of diseases that we no longer have the answers to in quite the way we did then.

so what's happening now is there's been a big shift in the way that people die, and most of what they're dying of now isn't as amenable to what we can do as what it used to be like when i was doing this in the '80s and '90s.

so we kind of got a bit caught up with this, and we haven't really squared with you guys about what's really happening now, and it's about time we did. i kind of woke up to this bit in the late '90s when i met this guy. this guy is called jim, jim smith, and he looked like this. i was called down to the ward to see him. his is the little hand. i was called down to the ward to see him by a respiratory physician. he said, \"look, there's a guy down here. he's got pneumonia, and he looks like he needs intensive care. his daughter's here and she wants everything possible to be done.\" which is a familiar phrase to us. so i go down to the ward and see jim, and his skin his translucent like this. you can see his bones through the skin. he's very, very thin, and he is, indeed, very sick with pneumonia, and he's too sick to talk to me, so i talk to his 7 / 42

daughter kathleen, and i say to her, \"did you and jim ever talk

about what you would want done if he ended up in this kind of situation?\" and she looked at me and said,

\"no, of course not!\" i thought, \"okay. take this steady.\" and i got talking to her, and after a while, she said to me, \"you know, we always thought there'd be time.\"

jim was 94. (laughter) and i realized that something wasn't happening here. there wasn't this dialogue going on that i imagined was happening. so a group of us started doing survey work, and we looked at four and a half thousand nursing home residents in newcastle, in the newcastle area, and discovered that only one in a hundred of them had a plan about what to do when their hearts stopped beating. one in a hundred. and only one in 500 of them had plan about what to do if they became seriously ill. and i realized, of course, this dialogue is definitely not occurring in the public at large.

now, i work in acute care. this is john hunter hospital. and i thought, surely, we do better than that. so a colleague of mine from nursing called lisa shaw and i went through hundreds and hundreds of sets of notes in the medical records department looking at whether there was any sign at all that 8 / 42

anybody had had any conversation about what might happen to them if the treatment they were receiving was unsuccessful to the point that they would die. and we didn't find a single record of any preference about goals, treatments or outcomes from any of the sets of notes initiated by a doctor or by a patient. so we started to realize that we had a problem, and the problem is more serious because of this.

what we know is that obviously we are all going to die, but how we die is actually really important, obviously not just to us, but also to how that features in the lives of all the people who

live on afterwards. how we die lives on in the minds of everybody who survives us, and the stress created in families by dying is enormous, and in fact you get seven times as much stress by dying in intensive care as by dying just about anywhere else, so dying in intensive care is not your top option if you've got a choice.

and, if that wasn't bad enough, of course, all of this is rapidly progressing towards the fact that many of you, in fact, about one in 10 of you at this point, will die in intensive care. in the u.s., it's one in five. in miami, it's three out of five people die in intensive care. so this is the sort of momentum 9 / 42

that we've got at the moment.

the reason why this is all happening is due to this, and i do have to take you through what this is about. these are the four ways to go. so one of these will happen to all of us. the ones you may know most about are the ones that are becoming increasingly of historical interest: sudden death. it's quite likely in an audience this size this won't happen to anybody here. sudden death has become very rare. the death of little nell and cordelia and all that sort of stuff just doesn't happen anymore. the dying process of those with terminal illness that we've just seen occurs to younger people. by the time you've reached 80, this is unlikely to happen to you. only one in 10 people who are over 80 will die of cancer.

the big growth industry are these. what you die of is increasing organ failure, with your respiratory, cardiac, renal, whatever organs packing up. each of these would be an admission to an acute care hospital, at the end of which, or at some point during which, somebody says, enough is enough, and we stop.

and this one's the biggest growth industry of all, and at least six out of 10 of the people in this room will die in this 10 / 42

form, which is the dwindling of capacity with increasing frailty, and frailty's an inevitable part of aging, and increasing frailty is in fact the main thing that people die of now, and the last few years, or the last year of your life is spent with a great deal of disability, unfortunately.

enjoying it so far? (laughs) (laughter) sorry, i just feel such a, i feel such a cassandra here. (laughter)

what can i say that's positive? what's positive is that this is happening at very great age, now. we are all, most of us, living to reach this point. you know, historically, we didn't do that. this is what happens to you when you live to be a great age, and unfortunately, increasing longevity does mean more old age, not more youth. i'm sorry to say that. (laughter) what we did, anyway, look, what we did, we didn't just take this lying down at john hunter hospital and elsewhere. we've started a whole series of projects to try and look about whether we could, in fact, involve people much more in the way that things happen to them. but we realized, of course, that we are dealing with cultural issues, and this is, i love this klimt painting, because the more you look at it, the more you kind of get the whole issue that's going on here, which is clearly the 11 / 42

separation of death from the living, and the fear — like, if you actually look, there's one woman there who has her eyes open. she's the one he's looking at, and [she's] the one he's coming for. can you see that? she looks terrified. it's an amazing picture.

anyway, we had a major cultural issue. clearly, people didn't want us to talk about death, or, we thought that. so with loads of

funding from the federal government and the local health service, we introduced a thing at john hunter called respecting patient choices. we trained hundreds of people to go to the wards and talk to people about the fact that they would die, and what would they prefer under those circumstances. they loved it. the families and the patients, they loved it. ninety-eight percent of people really thought this just should have been normal practice, and that this is how things should work. and when they expressed wishes, all of those wishes came true, as it were. we were able to make that happen for them. but then, when the funding ran out, we went back to look six months later, and everybody had stopped again, and nobody was having these conversations anymore. so that was really kind of heartbreaking for us, because we thought this was going to 12 / 42

really take off. the cultural issue had reasserted itself. so here's the pitch: i think it's important that we don't just get on this freeway to icu without thinking hard about whether or not that's where we all want to end up, particularly as we become older and increasingly frail and icu has less and less and less to offer us. there has to be a little side road off there for people who don't want to go on that track. and i have one small idea, and one big idea about what could happen. and this is the small idea. the small idea is, let's all of us engage more with this in the way that jason has illustrated. why can't we have these kinds of conversations with our own elders and people who might be approaching this? there are a couple of things you can do. one of them is, you can, just ask this simple question. this question never fails. \"in the event that you became too sick to speak for yourself, who would you like to speak for you?\" that's a really important question to ask people, because giving people the control over

who that is produces an amazing outcome. the second thing you can say is, \"have you spoken to that person about the things that are important to you so that we've got a better idea of what it is we can do?\" so that's the little idea.

13 / 42

the big idea, i think, is more political. i think we have to get onto this. i suggested we should have occupy death. (laughter) my wife said, \"yeah, right, sit-ins in the mortuary. yeah, yeah. sure.\" (laughter) so that one didn't really run, but i was very struck by this. now, i'm an aging hippie. i don't know, i don't think i look like that anymore, but i had, two of my kids were born at home in the '80s when home birth was a big thing, and we baby boomers are used to taking charge of the situation, so if you just replace all these words of birth, i like \"peace, love, natural death\" as an option. i do think we have to get political and start to reclaim this process from the medicalized model in which it's going.

now, listen, that sounds like a pitch for euthanasia. i want to make it absolutely crystal clear to you all, i hate euthanasia. i think it's a sideshow. i don't think euthanasia matters. i actually think that, in places like oregon, where you can have physician-assisted suicide, you take a poisonous dose of stuff, only half a percent of people ever do that. i'm more interested in what happens to the 99.5 percent of people who don't want to do that. i think most people don't want to be dead, but i do think most people want to have some control 14 / 42

over how their dying process proceeds. so i'm an opponent of euthanasia, but i do think we have to give people back some control. it deprives euthanasia of its oxygen supply. i think we should be looking at stopping the want for euthanasia, not for

making it illegal or legal or worrying about it at all. this is a quote from dame cicely saunders, whom i met when i was a medical student. she founded the hospice movement. and she said, \"you matter because you are, and you matter to the last moment of your life.\" and i firmly believe that that's the message that we have to carry forward. thank you. (applause) 杨澜TED双语励志演讲稿ted演讲稿范文（3） | 以下是杨澜在ted大会上的一篇题为the generation that's remaking china(重塑中国的一代)的演讲稿中英原文。她在演讲中分享了自己的人生经历，并讲述了当下中国的一些火热现象，演讲虽然不长，但是很多观点都很精辟，值得一看。

英文演讲稿：

the night before i was heading for scotland, i was invited to h ost the final of “china’s 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, “i’m going to scotland the next day.” she sang beautifully, and she even 15 / 42

managed to say a few words in chinese. [chinese] soit’s not like “hello” or “thank you,” that ordinary stuff. it means “greenonion 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 inshanghai, who loves singing western opera, but she didn’t understand anyenglish or french or italian, so she managed to fill in the lyrics with vegetable names in chinese. (laughter) and the last sentence of nessun dormathat she was singing in the stadium was “green onion for free.” so [as] susanboyle 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 themthrough. 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 16 / 42

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 —it’s 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 didn’t have a clue w hat a sales department was about in a five-star hotel. that was the first day i set my foot in a five-star hotel.

around the same time, i was going through an audition —the first ever open audition by national television in china —with another thousand college girls. the producer told us they were looking for some sweet,innocent and beautiful fresh face. so when it was my turn, i stood up and said,“why [do] women’s personalities on television always have to be beautiful,sweet, innocent and, you know, supportive? why can’t they have their own ideas and their own voice?” i thought i kind of offended them. but actually, they were impressed by my words. and so i 17 / 42

was in the second round of competition,and then the third and the fourth. after seven rounds of competition, i was the last one to survive it. so i was on a national television prime-time show. and believe it or not, that was the first show on chinese television that allowed its hosts to speak out of their own minds without reading an approved script.(applause) and my weekly audience at that time was between 200 to 300 million people.

well after a few years, i decided to go to the u.s. and columbia university to pursue my postgraduate studies, and then started my ownmedia company, which was unthought of during the years that i started mycareer. so we do a lot of things. i’ve interviewed more than a thousand peoplein the past. and sometimes i have young people approaching me say, “lan, you changed my life,” and i feel proud of that. but then we ar e also so fortunate to witness the transformation of the whole country. i was in beijing’s bidding for the olympic games. i was representing the shanghai expo. i saw china embracing the world and vice versa. but then sometimes i’m thinking, what are today’s young generation up to? how are they different, and what are the differences they are going to make to shape 18 / 42

the future of china, or at large,the world?

so today i want to talk about young people through the platform of social media. first of all, who are they? [what] do they look like?well this is a girl called guo meimei — 20 years old, beautiful. she showed offher expensive bags, clothes and car on her microblog, which is the chinese version of twitter. and she claimed to be the general manager of red cross at the chamber of commerce. she didn’t realize that she stepped on a sensitive nerve and aroused national questioning, almost a turmoil, against the credibility of red cross. the controversy was so heated

that the red cross had to open a press conference to clarify it, and the investigation is going on. so far, as of today, we know that she herself made up that title —probably because she feels proud to be associated with charity.all those expensive items were given to her as gifts by her boyfriend, who used to be a board member in a subdivision of red cross at chamber of commerce. it’s very complicated to explain. but anyway, the public still doesn’t buy it. it is still boiling. it shows us a general mistrust of government or government-backed institutions, which lacked transparency in the past. and also it showed us the power and the impact of 19 / 42