The narrative of planet earth, and of humanity itself, is being written by many authors. Some positive, others negative. And sometimes, extremely negative.
At the top of that list is climate change. A narrative the didn’t exist before the industrial revolution, but it’s now causing widespread death and destruction, today, through the end of the century, and beyond.
Former Vice President Al Gore knows this well, and continues to be a voice of reason, as well as hope, during these turbulent times. I wish I could share his enthusiasm, and I do hope that we take his advice and take action, but at the moment I don’t believe we’ll do enough, soon enough.
Which means that future generations will suffer. This outcome has become far worse do to the current administration’s intent on causing as much death and destruction as possible in the decades to come. Their climate change policy is nothing short of barbaric.
But I digress, as this article is highlighting Al Gore’s recent talk at the 2025 TED Countdown Summit on June 16, 2025. As we all know, a narrative thread that’s designed to slow progress on addressing the climate crisis involves a nonstop stream of lies and misinformation disseminated by the fossil fuel industry. In their latest PR con job, they’ve introduced the phrase “climate realism”.
Is it realistic to ignore the 1 to 2 billion climate refugees that the climate scientists are warning us will cross international borders and have to move inside their own nations by 2050 because of the climate crisis?
And over the next half century, according to Deloitte, it would cost the economy $178 trillion if we don’t act. But if we do act, we can add to the global economy by $43 trillion.
Granted, climate change is a complex subject, and there’s no single answer. But without question the answer involves a dedication to mitigating the use of fossil fuels whenever and wherever possible. In his talk Al Gore features some of the progress that’s been made, but also talks about what still needs to happen.
I believe that we as human beings have the capacity to recognize that our survival is at stake and that we need to move faster even though the big polluters have the political and economic power to try to block us.
And the interesting thing to realize, is that doing so is not only beneficial to the health of humanity, it’s financially beneficial. Win-Win. But the need for profit at any cost continues to threaten everyone on this planet. Our story is now being written by some very bad actors, and it’s a story I wish had a happier ending.
A lot of people are suffering. But do we want to vastly increase the number of people that have to go through that hardship and suffering instead of dealing with the cause of the crisis and solving the climate crisis?
Transcript
Thank you very much for the warm welcome.
It’s been 10 years since the Paris agreement, and every single nation in the world, 195 nations agreed to try to get to net zero by mid-century. And let me deal with the elephant in the room, one nation, only one has begun the process of withdrawing, and the Trump administration has also:
- Cancelled executive orders on climate and energy
- Withdrawn from international climate organizations
- The have declared a so-called “energy emergency,” in order to promote fossil fuels
- Phased our government support for clean energy
But bear this in mind. During the first Trump four-year term, investments in the energy transition doubled. We have seen solar capacity more than double, electric vehicle sales have doubled, wind energy went up by almost 50% during his first term.
And we are seeing that 60% during his first four years of new energy came from renewable energy and coal investments went down almost 20%. So, there’s good news and there’s bad news. A lot has happened in the last ten years.
But I want to ask this question. The fossil fuel industry wants to ignore the amazing good news and they are labeling the commitments that the world made at the Paris negotiations as a fantasy, and they’re calling for an abandonment of the efforts to reduce fossil fuel burning. And they’re now advocating a new approach that they call, “Climate Realism.”
Well, climate realism, according to them, we should abandon the efforts to deal with the principal cause of the climate crisis, 80% of it comes from burning fossil fuels, and we should focus on adaptation as well, almost exclusively. Well, we need adaptation. A lot of people are suffering. But do we want to vastly increase the number of people that have to go through that hardship and suffering instead of dealing with the cause of the crisis and solving the climate crisis?
They, according to climate realism, historically, the energy transitions have taken place very slowly. So we have no right as human beings to even imagine that we could go faster in the future than what history has told us was the reality in the past, even though human civilization is at stake.
For the so-called climate realists, the goal of solving the climate crisis is way less important than other goals such as, especially, increasing energy access to developing countries, which is, obviously, important, we’ll deal with that, but they want to do it, obviously, by burning more fossil fuels.
According to climate realism, it’s just not practical to stop using the sky as an open sewer for the emissions from burning fossil fuels and the other emissions, Instead, we should just continue using the sky as an open sewer. So, where climate realism is concerned, I have some questions.
Is it realistic to ignore the 1 to 2 billion climate refugees that the climate scientists are warning us will cross international borders and have to move inside their own nations by 2050 because of the climate crisis? You know, the temperatures keep going up. Ten hottest years were the last 10. Last year, 2024 was the hottest year in all of history.
Yesterday in parts of the Persian Gulf, 52.6 degrees, and for those of us who use Fahrenheit, 126.7 degrees. A few days ago in Pakistan, 50.5 degrees, that’s 122.9 in Fahrenheit. And they’re telling us that as the temperatures go up and the humidity goes up, the few areas in the world today that are labeled physiologically unlivable for human beings are due to expand quite dramatically by 2070 unless we act to cover all of these vast, heavily populated areas.
Is it realistic to ignore this crisis? Look at what a few million climate refugees have done to promote authoritarianism and ultra nationalism. How can we handle 1 to 2 billion in the next 25 years? Already here in Kenya, there are 800,000 refugees. 300,000 of them in in this place, where of course the USAID cuts are now cutting the food aid 70%. Is that what they mean by adaptation?
We have to also ask if it’s realistic to ignore the devastating damage predicted to the global economy. Whole regions of the world are becoming uninsurable. We see this in my country where people are having their insurance canceled, they can’t get it renewed. We have seen predictions that we could lose $25 trillion in the next 25 years just from the loss of the value of global housing properties.
And over the next half century, according to Deloitte, it would cost the economy $178 trillion if we don’t act. But if we do act, we can add to the global economy by $43 trillion. You know, I had a teacher said we face the same choice in life over and over again, the choice between the hard right and the easy wrong. It seems hard to choose correctly, but it would turn out to be even harder to take what looks like the easy wrong.
Is it realistic to ignore the fact that right now Greenland is losing 30 million tonnes of ice every single hour? In Antarctica, decade by decade, the ice melting has accelerated. We’ve seen the doubling of the pace of sea level rise in the last 20 years and the predictions are that it’s going to continue dramatically.
Is it realistic to ignore the rapidly increasing climate crisis, extreme events that are occurring, practically every night on the television news? It’s like a nature hike through the Book of Revelation. We lost 3.5 trillion dollars just in the last decade.
And you know, the fact that these scientists were absolutely correct decades ago when they predicted these exact consequences, should cause us to pay a little more attention to what they’re predicting is in store for us in the years ahead if we do not act. The drought last year and continuing at some level in the Amazon, the worst drought in the history of the Brazilian Amazon, 90% of the Amazon River in Colombia went dry.
This is the third year in a row that we’ve had these massive fires in Canada. When I left Tennessee to fly over here, we were breathing in Nashville, Tennessee, smoke from the Canadian wildfires. And they’re still getting worse today. The wildfires have doubled over the last 20 years in frequency and they’re due to increase even more.
Is it realistic to ignore the massive health impacts of the climate crisis? You know, the University of, well, the World Health Organization has long told us it is the most serious health threat facing humanity. Just last week the University of Manchester released a new study warning that three species of fungi in the next 15 years, because of increasing temperatures and increasing precipitation, will pose a significant risk of infection to millions of people. The fact that the fungi are being pushed into the range where they can threaten humans, that is not a fiction.
The particulate air pollution from the burning of fossil fuels kills almost 9 million people a year, costs almost $3 trillion per year from the burning of fossil fuels for both energy and petrochemicals. Let me show you an example from my country. Cancer Alley is the stretch that runs from New Orleans to Baton Rouge, Louisiana. All these red plumes are particulate pollution that people are breathing in.
The green areas by the way are are majority minority, mostly African-American areas. In the middle of Cancer Alley, Reserve, Louisiana has the highest cancer rate in the United States, 50 times the national average, and they want to put even more petrochemical facilities there.
Is it realistic to totally ignore the acidification of the world’s oceans? 30% more acid than before the industrial revolution and 93% of all the heat is being absorbed in the oceans. That’s why the coral reefs are in such danger. 84% in danger right now, we’ve seen massive die offs.
That’s why a lot of the fish are at risk. 40 to 60 percent of all the fish species face an extremely high risk, as the rivers and estuaries, where they have spawning and in their embryonic stages, continue to heat up. And 50 percent of all living species that we share this planet with are at risk of extinction.
Is it realistic to ignore that? My faith tradition tells me that Noah was commanded to save the species of this earth. I think we have a moral obligation as well. Is it realistic to ignore the predictions of a fresh water scarcity crisis? Already 40% are are facing water scarcities.
In the mountain glaciers here in the Himalayas, one quarter of the world’s population depends on that meltwater, but depending on whether or not we act, 80% of all those glaciers will disappear in this century.
We can act. Now this just happened in Switzerland. A 600-year-old city was completely destroyed by a glacial avalanche. Now they’re adapting.
Is this realistic? To put white sheets over the remaining parts of the glacier? Well, God bless them, I hope it works. But these are the kinds of extreme measures that people are being pushed to in order to avoid reducing the burning of fossil fuels. Because the fossil fuel industry and their petrostate and financial allies have control over policy.
In lots of cities, particularly in places like India, the water wells are going dry. In Bengaluru, 4 million people now have to buy expensive water trucked in because their wells have gone dry.
What about the food crisis that scientists are predicting? Is it realistic to ignore that as well in order to avoid doing anything to reduce fossil fuel emissions?
Now, why also, do these so-called climate realists ignore all the good news about the miraculous decline in the cost of the alternatives to fossil fuel? Is it possibly because their business models are threatened ff there is a cheaper, cleaner alternative that creates many more jobs? Might not be good for them the way they calculate it. But the rest of us have a stake in this.
This could be why they’ve been consistently wrong in their predictions in the past. For example, Exxon Mobil in the year of the Paris agreement had a prediction about solar capacity in 2040, 840 gigawatts. Well, this year we’ve already tripled the number that they predicted for 15 years from now. In OPEC the same year predicted electric vehicle sales would barely increase.
Well, they were wrong. Here’s what it is actual sales to date right now. Same year, OPEC predicted that it was just unrealistic to think that solar power would ever be able to compete in cost with the burning of fossil fuels, but now it is by far the cheapest source of electricity in all of history.
Now, you know, a lot of other people have been surprised by how quickly these costs have come down. University of Oxford studied 3,000 past projections and the average predicted decline was 2.6% a year, the reality was 15% per year. And when you compound the number like that, it makes quite a difference.
Here are all the past projections from the International Energy Agency of what solar energy was likely to do. Their projections year by year. And here is the reality of what has actually happened. Uh, it really is quite extraordinary. My goodness. Nobody could have imagined that it would be this incredible, but it is, and it’s right before us, and they still want to ignore it.
Since 2015, the world has installed twice as much solar as all fossil fuels combined. Solar is the breakout winner in fuel sources. Electric vehicles have increased 34 times over since the time of the Paris agreement. Vehicle sales in China, 52% are already EVs and within five years the prediction is 82% of all car sales will be electric vehicles.
Also by the way, China in April installed 45 gigawatts of new solar capacity in one month. That’s the equivalent of 45 brand new giant nuclear reactors in in one month. It’s actually incredible what is happening and the cost of all of these clean energy technologies has come down quite dramatically, particularly solar and even more dramatic is utility-scale batteries, 87% down. That’s making a huge difference as well.
But I have to say this, there’s one thing that the so-called climate realists are right about. In spite of this progress, we are still moving too slowly to meet the goals of the Paris agreement. We have got to accelerate it. We have the ability to do so, but the single biggest reason we have not been able to move faster is the ferocious opposition to virtually every policy proposal to try to speed up this transition and reduce the emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.
And the fossil fuel industry has used a lot of bright, shiny objects to divert the public’s attention and deceive them into thinking there are solutions other than reducing fossil fuel use. For example, carbon capture and storage and direct air capture and the recycling of plastics. And, you know, they’re much better at capturing politicians than they are at capturing emissions.
They’re employing their captive politicians and policymakers to help confuse the public. Here’s an example. Tony Blair, speaking for his foundation, his foundation gets massive funding from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Azerbaijan, etc. He said, “Oh, well, the center of the battle has to be carbon capture and direct air capture.”
Well, he really should know better. You know, Upton Sinclair wrote in my country, years ago, “It’s difficult to get a man to understand something if his income depends on him not understanding it.” The income goes to the foundation, as I understand it.
But here is carbon capture. These are the ones operational. These are the ones that have applied for permits. These are the ones that have had the big public announcements. Oh, boy, look, we’re going for carbon capture.
We don’t have to reduce the burning of fossil fuel. We’ll capture it all as it goes out the smokestack. It is a fraud. It is a deception imposed on the people in order to try to change policy and to make the policy what they want.
And because they’ve captured the politicians, they have been able to force the taxpayers in countries around the world to subsidize fossil fuels, to actually subsidize the destruction of humanity’s future. What would happen if we got rid of those subsidies?
Well, the International Monetary Fund said that we would get $4.4 trillion in savings, which happens to be just about the exact amount we need to finance the transition to renewable energy. That’s where a lot of the money can come from. We’d also save a lot of lives and we we’d also reduce emissions by a third in five years and we’d reduce income inequality.
So, is it realistic to ignore this urgent need to reform the world’s financial infrastructure so that we can properly invest in the climate crisis? Most of the financing comes from private sources, but developing countries are not getting their share of it. We need to reform the policies that are leading to this because 100% of the increased emissions expected are going to come from the developing countries.
We’re about to see massive reductions in emissions. It’s really it may have already started especially in China with all their renewables, but the developing countries, that’s where the emissions increases are due to take place. And yet they only receive less than 19% of the world’s financing for clean energy, but almost 50% of the money flooding in for more fossil fuels. The single U.S. state of Florida has more solar panels than the entire continent of Africa.
That is a disgrace because Africa has 60% of the world’s prime solar resources, yet only 1.6% of the financing for renewable energy. But look at what’s happening with the investments for fossil fuels in Africa. There’s a dash for gas, there all of these new facilities. There are three times as many fossil fuel pipelines under construction and proposed for construction to begin in Africa as in all of North America.
Uh and you take those LNG terminals, the cost of one of them, there are 71 in in the works, 31 already existing, $25 billion. That’s the exact amount that would provide universal energy access to all of Africa. So maybe we could spend that money a little bit better. But instead of financing actual energy access to renewable energy, they want access to the resources to export it from Africa instead of giving access for Africans.
You know the potential for solar and wind in in Africa is 400 times larger than the potential energy from fossil fuels. Every single country in Africa could have 100% energy access using less than 1% of its land. Most including the country we’re in, less than one .1%. of their land.
What else are they ignoring? Well, they’re ignoring that with solar and wind, you don’t face the fuel supply chain risk, that you don’t face price volatility for fuel. Look at what’s happening energy oil and gas soaring because of the war in the Middle East. In fact, they don’t have an annual fuel cost at all.
So we should be moving in this direction, not least because it creates three times as many jobs for each dollar spent as compared to a dollar spent on fossil fuels. Why do they also ignore the fact that methane is as bad as coal when the leaks are factored in and the leaks are ubiquitous. And right now in the European Union, the fossil fuel lobbyists are arguing as hard as they can to stop legislation to try to deal with methane leaks because they think it’ll cause them some money.
So, what’s really behind this preposterous theory call they call climate realism? Could it be that they’re kind of panicking a little bit about the loss of their markets? According to the IEA, all of the fossil fuels are projected to peak within the next few years. We’ve seen since the Paris agreement a complete turnaround in where the majority of investment is going, and emissions may have already peaked in several of these sectors and this is according to the climate trace precise measurements of peaking and a lot of these sectors are ones that need even more attention.
Agriculture, steel, etc. But last year, if you look at all the new electricity installed worldwide, 93% of it was renewable, mostly solar. So, the IEA has told us long since. We have all the technologies we need and proven deployment models to reduce emissions 50% in this decade. And clear line of sight to the other 50%.
A friend of mine in Tennessee said, “If God wanted us to have unlimited free energy, he’d have put a giant fusion reactor in the sky.” Well, if you look at how long it took to install a gigawatt of solar 20 years ago, a full year, now it’s down to 15 hours and it’s on the way down still.
So, here’s what I believe that the climate, so-called climate realists are most wrong about. They don’t believe that we the people who live on this planet, have the capacity to make the changes necessary to save our future.
The greatest president in my country’s history, Abraham Lincoln, said at a time of dire crisis, “The occasion is piled high with difficulty. We must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, we must think anew.”
I believe that we as human beings have the capacity to recognize that our survival is at stake and that we need to move faster even though the big polluters have the political and economic power to try to block us.
We’ve got everything we need. The people are demanding change. The one thing that they tell us might be in short supply is political will, but always remember, political will is itself a renewable resource. Let’s get out there and renew it.
Thank you. Thank you very much.
Key Themes:
◆
◆
Subscribe to the newsletter for the latest updates!
Copyright Storytelling with Impact® – All rights reserved
Crafting Impactful Personal Stories: A Guide to Literary Elements, Literary Techniques, and Literary Devices
/in Language, Narrative, Nonfiction, Storytelling/by Mark LovettIntroduction
The beautiful thing about telling personal stories is that everyone can do it. The fact is, we became storytellers in childhood, and we learned to do so with minimal instruction. As babies, we soaked up thousands of stories that swirled around us, and those narratives fed into our cognitive development. It didn’t take long for our infant babbling to become words, phrases, sentences, and finally, stories. Before our fifth birthday, we had become storytelling machines. (well, humans actually, but you know what I mean)
We didn’t consciously know anything about grammar, plots, settings, or character arcs. Yet subconsciously, we had learned a great deal about so many aspects of storytelling. Our skills continued to improve at each phase of our lives, from childhood to adolescence and into adulthood. And not a day goes by — unless you’re at a meditation retreat where you’re not allowed to speak — that you don’t tell dozens of stories, to family, friends, colleagues, even total strangers.
But having casual conversations is not the same as telling intentional stories in front of an audience. These are stories with a purpose, with an intent, with a message to share. And when that is the aim, it’s highly beneficial to study the literary elements, techniques, and devices that can dramatically increase the impact of your stories.
These stories transform both storyteller and listener (or reader) through the sharing of wisdom, insights, lessons learned, scientific discoveries, and visions of a better future. Whether recounting pivotal moments from your life journey or exploring ideas that could reshape how others think about the world, impactful personal storytelling requires more than just recounting events — it depends on the skillful use of foundational tools that make stories resonate deeply.
At the heart of compelling personal narratives lie three distinct but interconnected components:
Understanding how these work together provides the framework for crafting stories that don’t just inform or entertain, but genuinely impact lives.
Let’s start with the most important subject, literary elements, as they’re the fundamental building blocks of any story. These are the essential components that give structure to a narrative — plot, character, setting, theme, conflict, point of view, tone, mood, style, and structure. Think of them as the architectural framework upon which all stories are built. Without these elements, your narrative will lack the ability to fully engage an audience effectively.
Layered on top of the elements, literary techniques represent specific methods writers employ to bring their personal stories to life. These include approaches like imagery, flashback, foreshadowing, dialogue, stream of consciousness, reflection, symbolism, juxtaposition, allegory, and satire. These techniques shape how the story is told and guide audience members through the emotional and intellectual journey that every personal story contains.
Then we come to literary devices, the precise tools that add depth, beauty, and resonance to language itself. Devices such as metaphor, simile, alliteration, personification, hyperbole, irony, oxymoron, paradox, analogy, and sarcasm work at the sentence and phrase level to create vivid images, emotional connections, and memorable expressions. (Note: I’ve only included ten for this guide, but there are far more devices to explore on your own.)
When you employ these components in harmony, you’ll create stories that transcend the mere recounting of events. Doing so will transform individual experiences into universal truths, making your personal (and unique) journey accessible and meaningful to others. The interplay between elements, techniques, and devices will allow you to connect with audiences where they are, with their own (but similar) life experiences.
Chapter 1: Literary Elements
Literary elements form the essential foundation of every powerful story, transforming a simple recounting of events into a compelling narrative. These ten elements provide the structural backbone that supports your personal story, ensuring it resonates with others on an intellectual and emotional level, and sometimes, on a spiritual level.
Plot
Plot represents the sequence of events that drives a story forward, creating the “what happens next” momentum that keeps an audience engaged. In personal storytelling, plot isn’t just what occurred — it’s how you arrange those events to create meaning and emotional impact. Here are some plot structures to consider as you think about the story you want to tell.
Remember, you always start by defining what you want to share, and what you want the audience to understand differently at the end of your story. Within that framework, consider the ways in which you can tell that story, and which elements best serve the journey that your plot will take them on.
Character
In personal storytelling, you’re the protagonist, but effective character development means showing yourself as a complex, evolving human being rather than a flat narrator. Character development involves revealing personality traits, motivations, conflicts, and growth in your story.
As we’re focused on personal stories, the main character will always be you, but it’s common for other characters to be a part of the story you’re telling — part of your journey. So think about how you want to portray yourself, as well as other characters in the story. Is their personality or role in your story similar to yours? Contrasting? Opposite?
Setting
Setting encompasses not just the physical location of your story but also the time period, cultural context, and atmosphere that shaped your experience. In personal storytelling, setting can play a crucial role in background to events, showing how characters evolve over time, and exploring your story’s theme.
From a physical standpoint, settings can be expansive (within a country) more localized (in a city or neighborhood) or very specific (on a street or inside a room). Think about a restaurant, a park, living room, research lab, or refugee camp. Take the audience to where your experiences happened, thus allowing them to relive the events with you.
Theme
Theme represents the central idea or underlying message that emerges from your personal experience. It’s the deeper meaning that transforms your individual story into something universal, something that others can relate to and learn from.
While the details of your story are unique to you, the theme that your story is built upon is one that others have experienced in their own way. Put yourself in the audience’s shoes to consider the events that may have happened in their lives. Beyond the differences, to what extent is there thematic synergy.
Conflict
Conflict provides the tension that drives your story forward and creates opportunities for growth, revelation, and change. In personal storytelling, conflict can be internal, external, or both, and often serves as the catalyst for the insights and lessons you want to share.
Personal stories sometimes involve conflict with another person or persons, but can also occur between an individual and a business, service organization, or government agency, even nature. Conflict can also involve policies or cultural norms. As you scan the list below, consider the places where conflict shows up in your personal story.
Point of View
Point of view determines the perspective from which your story is told and influences how an audience will experience and interpret your narrative. In general, the point of view will be yours, as it’s your story, but when other characters are part of your narrative, their point of view can add depth and complexity to the story, as well as foster conflict.
Tone
Tone reflects your attitude toward the subject matter and alters how an audience interprets and emotionally responds to your story. It’s the emotional coloring that guides their feelings and understanding throughout the narrative.
While some stories maintain a consistent tone throughout, it’s more common for stories to shift tone as the narrative unfold. The point is to review each of your Story Blocks and determine which tone best supports the message you want the audience to understand.
Mood
Mood represents the emotional atmosphere you create for the audience, and influences how they feel while hearing your story. Unlike tone, which reflects your attitude, mood encompasses the overall emotional experience that you’re crafting for your audience.
Style
Style encompasses your unique way of using language, sentence structure, and narrative techniques to tell your story. It’s your distinctive voice that makes your personal storytelling recognizable and memorable. While it stands alone to some extent, it’s the combination of style, mood, and tone that wraps around the characters and plot to become a complete and complex story.
Structure
Structure refers to how you organize and arrange the elements of your story to create the most effective and impactful narrative experience. The structure you choose significantly affects how others understand and connect with your story. There’s no correct structure for a particular story, so feel free to try out a number of structures to discover the best fit for yours.
Chapter 2: Literary Techniques
Literary techniques are the specific methods and approaches used to bring personal stories to life. These techniques perform a variety of services, from creating visual images, to getting inside the mind of the storyteller, and transcending time, among other functions. Compelling stories will employ a number of these techniques, so keep them in mind as you craft your story.
Imagery
Imagery involves using vivid, sensory language to create mental pictures that allow others to see, hear, smell, taste, and feel what you have experienced. Effective imagery transports the audience directly into your story, making them active participants in your journey. It can put them in your shoes to some extent, and in doing so, support the theme and message of your story.
Flashback
Flashback allows you to move backward in time to provide context, background, or deeper understanding of future events. This technique helps audience members understand how past experiences shaped later perspectives and decisions.
Foreshadowing
Foreshadowing involves subtly hinting at future passages in your story. Doing so builds anticipation and demonstrats how early experiences connect to later challenges or revelations. This technique helps an audience see the deeper patterns and connections in your life journey.
Dialogue
Dialogue — the words exchanged between characters — reveals character, explains events, advances the narrative, and creates immediacy. Effective dialogue helps the audience hear the voices of the people who shaped your story. You may decide to quote dialogue between yourself and one or more other people, but you can also quote dialogue that you overheard
Stream of Consciousness
Stream of consciousness captures the natural flow of thoughts, memories, and associations as they occurred in your mind, creating an intimate and authentic representation of your internal experience. This technique allows the audience to experience your thought processes directly — what was going through your mind as an event was unfolding.
Reflection
Reflection involves stepping back from the narrative to analyze, interpret, and find meaning in your experiences. Doing so in your story will encourage the audience to reflect on the events in your story and reflect on what they might have done in your situation.
Symbolism
Symbolism uses objects, actions, or situations to represent deeper meanings and themes beyond their literal interpretation. In personal storytelling, symbolism helps others understand complex emotions and concepts through concrete, relatable images.
Juxtaposition
Juxtaposition places contrasting elements side by side to highlight differences, create emphasis, or reveal deeper truths about the experience at hand. This technique helps audience members understand what you were experiencing at a moment in time.
Allegory
Allegory tells a story which represents a larger, more universal story or concept. In personal storytelling, allegory allows you to share personal experiences that illuminate broader truths about life, society, or human nature. This technique can be used for one part of your story, in effect telling a story within your story.
Satire
Satire uses humor, irony, or exaggeration to critique and expose flaws in human behavior, institutions, or social conditions you’ve encountered. In personal storytelling, satire can make serious points more palatable while entertaining the audience.
Chapter 3: Literary Devices
Literary devices are the precise tools that work at the language level to create vivid imagery, emotional resonance, and memorable expressions when telling personal stories These devices add beauty, depth, and impact to narratives, transforming ordinary descriptions into more evocative expressions that connects directly with the audience’s hearts and minds.
Metaphor
Metaphor creates direct comparisons between unlike things without using “like” or “as,” helping others understand complex emotions or concepts through familiar images. In personal storytelling, metaphors make abstract experiences concrete and relatable.
Simile
Similes create comparisons using “like” or “as,” offering clear and relatable images that help audience members connect with your experiences and understand your message. Similes provide vivid descriptions while maintaining the distinction between the compared elements.
Alliteration
Alliteration repeats initial consonant sounds in closely connected words, creating rhythm, emphasis, and memorability when telling personal stories. This device adds musicality and can highlight important concepts or emotions.
Personification
Personification gives human characteristics to non-human things, making abstract concepts, emotions, or objects more relatable and vivid. This device helps the audience connect emotionally with particular experiences.
Hyperbole
Hyperbole uses deliberate exaggeration to emphasize emotions, create humor, or make memorable points in your stories. This device helps other people understand the intensity of your experiences through dramatic overstatement.
Irony
Irony presents contrasts between expectation and reality, appearance and truth, or intention and outcome in personal storytelling. This device adds depth and oftentimes humor while highlighting life’s complexities and surprises.
Oxymoron
Oxymoron combines contradictory terms to create striking phrases that capture complex emotions or situations in personal stories. This device helps express the paradoxes and contradictions that often define human experience.
Paradox
Paradox presents seemingly contradictory statements that reveal deeper truths about our experiences. This device helps express the complex, often counterintuitive nature of personal growth and human understanding.
Analogy
Analogy creates extended comparisons that help the audience understand complex experiences by relating them to familiar situations. This device provides deeper explanations than simple metaphors or similes, often running through entire passages.
Sarcasm
Sarcasm uses ironic or bitter humor to highlight contradictions, express frustration, or critique situations when telling personal stories. This device can add humor while making serious points about human nature or social conditions.
Conclusion
The art of impactful personal storytelling emerges from the skillful integration of literary elements, techniques, and devices working in harmony to transform individual experiences into narratives that connect with wide-ranging audiences. These three foundational components serve distinct but complementary purposes in crafting stories that resonate deeply with readers and listeners to create lasting impact.
When personal stories are crafted properly, the storyteller’s journey becomes a mirror in which others see their own struggles, hopes, and possibilities reflected. The wisdom gained through one person’s experience becomes accessible to those who haven’t yet faced similar challenges. Discoveries, insights, and lessons learned — whether practical, emotional, or spiritual — help others navigate their own paths.
The most powerful personal stories achieve this transformation by honoring both the specific details of individual experience and the universal patterns that connect all human lives. They balance honesty about struggle and failure with hope about growth and possibility.
Whether you’re sharing hard-won wisdom from personal challenges, insights from professional discoveries, or visions for a better future, the conscious use of literary elements, techniques, and devices elevates the impact of your storytelling. These tools help you craft narratives that not only preserve your experiences but actively contribute to the healing, growth, and understanding of all who encounter them. The goal of impactful personal storytelling is not merely to be heard, but to create genuine connection and positive change in the world.
◆
Storytelling in Three Steps
Ten Fundamental Story Blocks
The Essential Literary Elements
◆
contact me to discuss your storytelling goals!
◆
Subscribe to the newsletter for the latest updates!
Copyright Storytelling with Impact® – All rights reserved
Are we heading towards World War III? – Heni Ozi Cukier at TEDxLisboa 2025
/in Democracy, Government, History, Politics, Society, TEDx, Warfare/by Mark LovettWorld War I — The Great War — The War to End All Wars. With a death toll that exceeded 20 million, many believed it was, and others at least hoped it was, but such was not the case. More than 3 times as many perished during World War II. Afterwards, fewer believed or even hoped it would be the last. The atomic bomb changed everything we thought we knew about war.
The Cold War kept the world on its toes until the dissolution of the USSR in 1991, supposedly bringing that era to and end. And for a while there was a resurgence of hope that humanity had finally turned a corner. Mutual Assured Destruction was supposed to keep us crazy humans in check.
But in his talk at TEDxLisboa in March 2025, professor Heni Ozi Cukier asked the audience to consider the question again: Are we heading towards World War III? On the one hand, answering such a question would consume many hours, if not days, so the challenge from a storytelling perspective was how to do that in less than 18 minutes from the stage.
Beyond the fact that this is one of the most important questions that any of us can ask, Heni’s talk is an excellent example of how to take a very complex topic and present it in a way that general audiences — composed of people who are not experts in geopolitics — can understand.
Heni does this in two ways. First, he takes us back in time to examine what was happening when previous world wars erupted. In this way we can frame what’s going on in the world today against how events transpired in the past. But even this method involves too many variables, too much complexity, so he highlights four dimensions for the audience to track from past to present:
Within the first minute, the audience is clear on the topic at hand, the three time periods in question, and the four dimensions that will be reviewed at each stage. In a sense, he’s given them signposts to follow as the narrative unfolds, ensuring they won’t get lost along the way.
Follow along with the transcript as you listed to Heni’s talk. Notice how each element is presented in order. How each is explained enough to understand, without over-explaining. And the conclusion does not give us an answer to the question initially posed, but summarizes the current state of world affairs in a way that invites us to do our own research, and come to our own conclusion.
Transcript
History has taught us many lessons, and we should pay attention to its signs because we might be heading towards World War III.
One way to understand today’s events is to look for clues from the past. But cherry-picking historical events to forecast the future is a risky exercise that oftentimes only reinforces our biases. So, I want to do something different. Instead of comparing historical examples with what is happening now, I will examine four major dimensions of life: the social, economic, political, and military dimensions. And I will analyze key trends within each one of those dimensions in three critical moments in history: before World War I, before World War II, and today.
So, let’s begin with the social dimension. And there are many factors that shape societies, but I want to focus on how technological innovations have produced social anxieties and destabilized societies throughout history. Before World War I, the Second Industrial Revolution was transforming life with electricity, cars, phones, mass production, and more. While many celebrated these advances, they also disrupted societies.
For instance, machines replaced workers, and new farming techniques uprooted populations from the countryside. This led to insecurity and resentment. At the same time, traditional authorities such as churches and monarchies, they were questioned at that time. And new mass movements, they emerged, such as labor unions and nationalist leagues. People were afraid that progress was shaking the very foundation of societies.
Moving a little bit ahead, in the interwar years before World War II, technology continued to affect life. The word “robot” was even coined in 1921, and it symbolizes fears of possibly machines substituting human jobs. At the same time, or a little bit later, the famous economist John Maynard Keynes warned us in 1930 of a new disease, namely technological unemployment.
During this period, we had communications revolutions that completely changed public discourse. So, these media became powerful tools for propaganda, polarizing politics, and amplifying social fears. Traditionalists at that time, they were worried that modern culture was simply eroding tradition, family, and religion.
Today, we are going through a technological revolution driven by AI, digital media, and social platforms. The internet, smartphones, and social media have transformed the way we work, communicate, and even think. Psychologists, they debate how digital life is affecting children’s development, while concerns over privacy and surveillance and AI-driven job loss continue to grow. Technologies are spreading ideas across the globe, but also they are amplifying frustrations, fears, and divisions faster than ever before.
In short, technological progress brings incredible benefits, but they also breed insecurity, resentment, and uncertainty. Historically, such anxieties have made societies more unstable and vulnerable to extreme ideologies that fuel militarism and war.
Now, let’s talk about the economics. And I want to present two perspectives on the economics. The first one is related to a common idea that economic prosperity prevents wars. And the argument goes like this. It makes no sense for a nation to go to war and destroy its own wealth. So they don’t want to go to war.
Before World War I, in 1914, Britain dominated global trade and finance. Germany was thriving industrially and expanding its exports. Both countries, they knew that there were no financial benefits that justify the enormous economic costs of going to war. However, World War I taught us a very important lesson.
Economics may explain what can be done, but politics decides what will be done. Fear, ambition, miscalculation, all overrode by even the strongest economic success, showing us that simply war and peace are not decided by economic arguments alone. We have to take into consideration political, ideological, and strategic reasons.
Okay. So, what is going on with the second perspective? And the common perspective says the following. People assume that nations, they want to be wealthy and powerful. It’s not that they don’t want that, they do, but they want something else. It’s better for them if they are wealthier or more powerful than their rivals. Right? So what it matters is the relative power. I want to be more powerful, I don’t want to be just powerful, I want to be more powerful than my enemy or my rival.
Let’s look at what happened at World War II. And in that moment, Germany and Japan, they did not see trade as mutually beneficial. Why? They were gaining less than their rivals: Britain, France, and the US, which made them vulnerable. What was their response? Searching for self-sufficiency and eventually war.
So what is going on today? There are two main ideas that we see all over. The US-China economic interdependence will prevent war. Really? I just told you what happened in World War I. Right? So, economics alone do not determine geopolitical outcomes. We have to consider political, strategic, ideological, and many other factors.
When we think of what is going on after or what happened after the COVID-19 pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, at that moment, states realized that it’s too risky to be really dependent on your rival. So, as nations reassess today their economic dependencies, they are all moving towards one thing, or actually two: self-sufficiency and economic nationalism, just like before World War II.
History reminds us that wars are not only caused by economic situations, but we have to take into consideration political factors and relative power.
All right. So, let’s go to the political dimension. Here, I want to talk about polarization. And polarization not only divides societies, but ultimately it might destroy the political order. Polarization comes in many forms: divided media, political battles, legislative deadlocks, contested elections, and its worst form, political violence. And that’s when armed groups emerge because they don’t trust institutions to resolve the disputes of society.
What we have in World War I, before that actually, in the Balkans, there’s a deep polarization, and many nationalist movements clashing against the Austro-Hungarian Empire. And that led to the Serbian group, the secret Serbian group Black Hand, to assassinate the Archduke Franz Ferdinand in 1914, which wasn’t an isolated event. It was the result of years of political violence in a fractured society that triggered World War I.
Now, what do we have before World War II? The same situation. Germany. The Weimar Republic was struggling with escalating polarization, and violence became common. Assassinations of key political figures, such as the Finance Minister in 1921 and the Foreign Minister in 1922, they demonstrated this. Soon, at that time, all political factions from the right, the center, and the left, they had their own militias. And obviously, this brought instability, and we know the rise of authoritarianism and World War II.
What do we have today? Very interesting and scary in some ways. January 6, 2021, the attack on the US Capitol. Some Trump supporters contested the result of the election. That is a clear example where polarization became violent. More recently, several assassination attempts against President Trump. Polarization and violence in the United States is coming from all sides, but this is not only the US.
Let’s look at Germany. There’s a deep surge or a big surge in political violence in Germany. Over the last five years, more than 10,000 attacks on politicians, while the far-right supporters of AfD have committed a lot of attacks against other politicians. The politicians from AfD themselves, they are frequent targets for this political violence. As you can see, the signs are really big. And when we analyze what history shows us, we realize that once armed groups emerge, compromise becomes impossible and conflict inevitable. If polarization nowadays has reached this level, society or the political order is on the brink of collapse.
Now, let’s go to the final dimension, the military dimension. And here I want to focus on alliances because they are key to understanding how conflicts become worldwide disasters. Wars, or world wars, they don’t start as global wars. They begin as regional wars. And then a regional problem becomes this big problem because of the alliances. Let’s take a look at World War I before that. We had a dispute between Austria and Serbia, and because of the alliance, it escalated to become a European war. And once Britain joined, it became a global war.
The same thing happened in World War II. We had three regional conflicts, separated conflicts, initiated by three different countries. Germany won a hegemony in Europe, Italy sought an empire in the Mediterranean and Africa, and Japan wanted to control China and Asia-Pacific. World War II only became a world war when the United States entered the war after the Pearl Harbor attack.
So, how is this related to today? We already have two regional wars: Russia in Ukraine and Iran with its proxy’s wars in the Middle East. And the third one is taking shape as China aims to take Taiwan. Maybe in that third theater, we’re going to see more countries joining. And then, as in World War II, we’re going to have three regional conflicts that become a global war.
There’s another important aspect of alliances, which is the level of integration, how united they really are. This is interesting. When we look at the Axis powers of the 1930s—Germany, Italy, and Japan—they were not allied. Really, actually, they were on opposite sides. When we look at the crisis in Austria in 1934 and in Ethiopia in 1935, Italy was on one side and Germany was on the other. When we look at who was helping China against Japan until late 1938, that was Germany.
And then, comparing this to today, we have a new axis being formed: China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran today. They are all united, like who sends ammunitions, weapons, and even soldiers to help Russia fight Ukraine? North Korea. Who gives food and energy to North Korea? China. Who buys Iran’s sanctioned oil? China. Who buys Russia’s gas? China. And China supplies Russia with electronic equipment to keep its war.
As you can see, the axis of today, which I call the axis of dictatorships, they are really united, much more than the axis of the thirties. And on the other hand, we look at the opposing alliance, which is what? NATO and the democracies, they are falling apart, and they’re breaking, and they are divided.
History tells us that alliances are very important. If we have the aggressors’ alliance growing stronger and the opposing alliance becoming divided and weak, the incentives for the aggressors to strike, they’re really big. I’m not here talking about any inevitable destiny, but I’m looking for historical patterns that help us connect the dots. And with that, we might not repeat the mistakes of the past.
And to end, I want to remind you of the famous aphorism: “History does not repeat itself, but it often rhymes.”
Thank you.
Some final thoughts…
You may have come to your own conclusion regarding Professor HOC’s talk, but as I see it, it’s not a prophecy of doom but a call to action. By understanding the historical patterns that have led to past conflicts, we can be more vigilant in how we address the challenges of our time. It is a reminder that peace is not a given, but something that must be actively pursued and protected. For each of us, this means staying informed, engaging in civil discourse, and holding world leaders accountable for their actions on the global stage.
◆
contact me to discuss your storytelling goals!
◆
Subscribe to the newsletter for the latest updates!
Copyright Storytelling with Impact® – All rights reserved
The Superpower of Comic Con – Natalie Kaczorowski at TEDxSanDiego 2016
/in Audience, Comedy, Community, Identity, TEDx/by Mark LovettComic Con is like a multi-day thrill ride, more carnival than convention, packed with eccentric attire, celebrities, and all things pop-culture. For years, onlookers have viewed these masters of the geek universe with a sense of confusion and comic relief.
That’s about to change, as Natalie Kaczorowski, aka Comic Connie, looks behind the mask of Comic Con to explain the hype, the craziness, and the exceptional superpower of Comic Con. Strap in for the thrill-ride of your life, as things are about to get nerdy.
Back in the day, when I was the organizer of TEDxSanDiego, I would start lining up speakers 6 months ahead of time. The theme for 2016 was The Age of Magic. One aspect of this theme addressed the incredible technology that was being developed and deployed around the world in ways that could change society.
But another way to look at this theme was through the lens of human identity and the human imagination. That got me thinking about Comic-Con, the world-famous conference held annually in San Diego. And as luck would have it, I knew someone who approached the yearly convention with an unbridled passion.
The brilliance in Natalie’s talk comes from her ability to weave her personal story of finding her identity and her tribe to the broader story of how everyone is just playing a role in life, whether they recognize it or not.
Notice how she captures the audience’s attention and has them laughing — first by referring to the superhero outfit she’s wearing on stage, and seconds later, to the outfit she’s wearing in a photo taken at Comic Con.
She then takes us from the woman she is on stage that day, to the young girl she was growing up and the central topic of how we all struggle to find our identity. In her case, that journey was through the world of comic book heroes.
And when she introduces the topic of cosplay, it’s an opportunity to connect to the audience on the topic of self-expression, and thus, personal identity.
As you follow Natalie’s journey of self-expression, connecting with her tribe, and becoming her most invincible self, reflect upon your own path and the struggles you’ve had to simply be yourself.
If you’re in the process of writing a personal story of your own, note how Natalie blends various story blocks in order to create a narrative tapestry that’s founded in her own experiences, but reaches out the audience with a universal message.
Transcript
I wish I could wear this every day.
No, I meant this.
That’s me, by the way.
Sounds like a funny request, but this photo actually reminds me of this photo. Which is also me. Now, I know the first thing that comes to mind when you see this photo is, obviously, future TEDx speaker. But if you look deeper, you’ll see there’s a similarity between these two photos.
This is me at my most amazing. And this is me at my most invincible. And in both photos, I am my most fearless. I didn’t realize that until I experienced the superpower of Comic-Con for the first time.
Society doesn’t tell us that we can dress in superhero costumes in everyday life. We need to get a real job, get a real degree, start a real family. We are supposed to be normal. We struggle, though, with identity our entire lives. It’s a common theme in superhero stories, too. Peter Parker struggles with the fact that he’s Spider-Man. Clark Kent changes his appearance to hide the fact that he’s Superman. Bruce Wayne doesn’t feel free until he becomes Batman.
When I was a kid, I always had a flair for the dramatic. Turns out I had a condition called being an insufferable pain in the ass. I wasn’t raised by my real parents, so I imagined my journey through life in the context of Superman. I always felt like the world was on the verge of ending, so I felt like a vampire slayer. All that drama actually made things more clear. It was good versus evil, right and wrong, black and white. With great power comes great responsibility.
Somewhere along the line, I quit looking at the world that way. We reach an age where we stop believing that we’re capable of saving the world or in magical lands where anything is possible. Which is why Comic-Con is such an enigma. I get it. Not everyone understands Comic-Con. First of all, you don’t simply just go there! It’s really hard to get tickets! Tickets to Comic-Con aren’t really bought so much as you win the privilege of paying for a ticket.
During open registration, badges sell out in less than an hour in the most stressful, indigestion-inducing process in history. Ask anyone that’s been through this, it’s the joy of being selected for Hogwarts matched with the sheer terror of surviving the Hunger Games.
I get asked all the time, why go through all that trouble? Or more commonly, you pay so much money and get dressed up and sit in some theater to watch a bunch of people talk. It’s gonna come out on YouTube. I mean, you guys get it, right? So annoying. Let it sink in.
Truth is, millions of people try to go to Comic-Con. It has something for everyone. It ranges from well-known comics and mainstream movies and television, to also include video games, anime, science, technology, everything in between. It’s the one place where the line to the men’s room can consist of Reed Richards, Han Solo, Captain Picard, someone cosplaying astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, and the actual Neil deGrasse Tyson.
You might have heard that term cosplay before. It’s a big part of Comic-Con. Cosplay is the art of dressing up. And like any classic art, it revolves around self-expression. Celebrities even dress up to go to Comic-Con for the same reason everyone else does: because you can be whoever you want to be. Even if you just want to dress and blend in with the Stormtroopers.
Comic-Con is really an invitation to celebrate self-expression. I’m going to tell you an origin story about how my two identities became one. Natalie grew up in a small town. She didn’t win any high school awards. But if there was a trophy for most contributed screencaps of the Dharma logos on the Lost Wikipedia page, she would have won it. She found a small tribe of people that would put up with her crazy teen antics, even embrace her for it. She thought that familial bond she had was isolated to her hometown until she went to Comic-Con.
Now, here’s a place full of hundreds of thousands of people that not only got it, but celebrated it. It’s a utopia, a hub of energy, full of lights and sounds and culture. Comic-Con is like a parade, Mardi Gras, and Times Square, all at the same time. It’s Nerd Mecca. Of course I’d want to live there. I mean, she, she would want to live there.
So, Natalie moved to San Diego. And every year when Comic-Con came to town, it was like homecoming. But on the last day of Comic-Con, she gets this sinking feeling in her chest. She felt worse after Comic-Con. She didn’t know why. She did all the normal things: got a job, got a degree, gotten married. Something was missing that compelled her to change. So she began to dismantle all of the beautiful things she had, one by one, until she had none of those things.
A friend of ours came up with an idea about how to best utilize her talents. We called it Comic-Con-nie. All that was needed was a camera, her passion for Comic-Con, and to act like a super nerd. Oh, and she had to wear the costume. That changed everything. Wearing that costume, playing that part, it allowed her to unlock her passion for talking to people about the characters and the stories that excited her.
And when she ran out of different costumes to wear, she started wearing nerdy t-shirts, even off-camera. And then something amazing happened. People from diverse backgrounds would recognize those symbols. They’d strike up conversations she never saw coming. Sometimes it’s, “I love your shirt!”
Seeing that symbol gives them this freedom in identifying that we are members of the same tribe. That was my radioactive spider bite. That’s when who I was trying to be and who I was afraid of being finally came together. That’s when I realized, this is who I’m supposed to be. Comic-Con connects individuals with their tribe. But fandom is the connection that the tribe has with characters which represent an ideal that we admire.
It could come in the form of power, like Superman’s abilities. Iron Man’s financial strength. Sherlock Holmes’ superior intellect. Or maybe, maybe we just need courage. Like Katniss Everdeen from The Hunger Games, or Jon Snow from Game of Thrones, who in the face of insurmountable odds still have the courage to fight. And the best part? People are lining up to speak with Charles Xavier.
I understand there’s a lot of pushback with this idea of dressing up in large groups. For some reason, people find it strange to wear Vulcan ears to match your Starfleet uniform. But when you spend over $300 on an authentic jersey and paint your face in your team’s colors, I have news for you. You are a nerd! Nerd! We do this, though, for love of the story. It’s united humans together for thousands of years.
Maybe it’s a group of people sitting in an auditorium or watching online randomly chosen members of society tell their stories. You can nerd out about anything. I’ve stood in line overnight to watch a panel for a TV show called Supernatural. Thank you. In 2016, Supernatural broke a record by entering its 12th season. I’m not still watching to see which of the two main characters is going to get punched in the face by a ghost this week. I stand in line to meet other fans. The show speaks to us because it teaches us that home isn’t necessarily where you came from. Family doesn’t end with blood. We are stronger together than we are apart.
Comic-Con is a ritual that celebrates this transformation. For four days out of the year, you can be whoever you want to be instead of who you’re supposed to be. Define yourself. That’s the superpower of Comic-Con. Comic-Con was the catalyst for my own transformation. Natalie and Comic-Con-nie have merged into me. To become my most amazing, my most invincible. And they’ve led me to this stage so I can become my most fearless.
I want to live in a world where we don’t have to have an identity struggle or change or hide our appearance to hide from who we really want to be. What if being a superhero in everyday life was normal? You dress for the job you want. And dressing the part and playing the part means being the part. Then the real question is, who are you cosplaying as this year?
We are who we choose to be. So choose.
Thank you.
◆
contact me to discuss your storytelling goals!
◆
Subscribe to the newsletter for the latest updates!
Copyright Storytelling with Impact® – All rights reserved
Are We Still Human If Robots Help Raise Our Babies? – Sarah Blaffer Hrdy at TED2025
/in AI, Artificial Intelligence, Family, Humanity, TED Talk/by Mark LovettWe were all babies at one point in time, and as we couldn’t care for ourselves, that responsibility fell to one or more adults. Typically our parents, but in some cases other relatives. In any event, our upbringing was a matter of human-to-human contact. But what about in the future? With AI and robotics advancing rapidly, will non-humans begin playing a role in raising future generations?
In her brief talk at TED2025, Sarah Blaffer Hrdy reminds us of the process that’s been in place for many thousands of years, and poses this exact question. As an anthropologist and primatologist, as well as a Professor Emerita, Department of Anthropology at the University of California, Davis, Sarah has unique insights on this issue.
An interesting point that Sarah brings up is that neuroscientists have detected activity in brain regions associated with social understanding in young babies when interacting with people, demonstrating early social wiring in their brains. Which had me wondering whether that would still be true with a robot.
To be honest, this is one talk that I feel should have been five minutes longer. It felt as if the question was posed, some background offered, but little attention paid to the answer. For me, this highlighted the fallacy of “less is more”. In this case, less was definitely less, to the point that the message fell short.
Transcript
I guess you’ve already figured out, like it or not, artificial intelligence is going to change the nature of human work. But will it change human nature? That’s going to depend on what we do with it.
Right away, the mother and the grandmother in me wants to know, “Ooh, hey, can we program robots to help us care for our sleep-depriving, time-consuming babies?” That’s before the evolutionary anthropologist in me cautions, “Whoa. Shouldn’t we first ask why such costly, costly, slow-maturing babies evolved in the first place?”
For that, we need to go back, oh, six million years, to when humans last shared a common ancestor with other apes. Babies back then, like this common chimpanzee baby today, would have to be held in skin-to-skin contact, never out of touch, not for a minute of the day or night for months after birth, nursed for years.
It just seemed natural to assume that among the bipedal apes in the line leading to the genus Homo, babies could similarly expect single-mindedly dedicated maternal care.
Until, that is, anthropologists figured out how hard it would have been for bipedal apes with only stone-age tools to survive and escape extinction in the face of climate change and other Pleistocene perils.
To stay fed and manage to still rear their helpless, helpless, slow-maturing babies, mothers needed help. Unless male and female group members other than the mother, allomothers, had helped to care for and provision babies, there is no way we humans could have evolved.
Fortunately for us, as brains were getting bigger and distinctively human prefrontal cortices were taking shape, our ancestors were increasingly sharing food and sharing care of children. Neural circuits crucial for mutual understanding co-evolved right along with shared care.
Fast forward to the ever-faster changing modern world. Mothers still labor to help support their families, as mothers always have. But many no longer live in mutually supportive communities, with kin far away and even with dads helping more, allomothers were in short supply.
Good daycare, even if available, unaffordable. No wonder parents everywhere use devices to keep their babies monitored and entertained. Already, 40% of US two-year-olds have their own tablets. Soon, robots will be programmed to provide a wider range of services, ranging from bottle-feeding to keeping babies safe, warm, cleaned, and even educated.
But given the role of engagement with others in the emergence of mutual understanding, is this a good idea? Think back to our hunter-gatherer ancestors. Still living and rearing children as people in this iconic photograph, taken about half a century ago among African foragers. Babies then, to stay safe, still needed to be held by somebody.
But that somebody did not have to be their mother. Right after birth, others might reach for the baby. This mother who has just given birth allows others to gather around. She’s passed her baby to her own mother to massage its scalp. If one of these allomothers happens to be nursing, the baby’s first sweet taste of milk will come from her.
Soon, babies will be monitoring nearby others, deciding who responds, figuring out how best to engage and appeal to them. By six months, the sharp little milk teeth are peeking through their gums, their appeals might be rewarded with kiss-fed treats, maybe honey-sweetened saliva or premasticated meat.
And babies soon are learning to reciprocate, starting to share. Babies everywhere will just spontaneously offer food to somebody else, anybody, really. Active agents in their own survival, babies are flexible about who or what they attach or consider as family.
Something to keep in mind if robots are programmed to respond even more rapidly and reliably than preoccupied parents do. And as they get older, they will spontaneously point to things, or hold something out, as if saying, “What do you think of this? What should I think of this?”
Eager to engage with other minds and learn what they’re thinking. They care. They care very much who notices them do something nice, like a toddler rushing to pick up something someone has dropped and hand it back. They care not just with what others think, but with what others think about them, their reputations.
As developmental psychologists were learning just how “other-regarding” human babies are, neuroscientists using new baby-friendly technologies made a surprising discovery. With a soft, wired cap slipped on the baby’s head, neural activity was detected in the medial prefrontal cortex, long before most neuroscientists even assumed it was active yet. As babies process eye gaze, actions, deciding who to trust, emulate, and love.
Little humans process their physical world in much the same way other apes do. Nothing much different there. It’s in these social realms where they really differ. Inter-subjective sensibilities starting to emerge early in life, right along with targeted social smiles.
Brain circuitry that evolved to help babies elicit care and survive, prepared our ancestors to mature into adults able to communicate and cooperate in new ways, whether constructing shelters or processing and sharing food, or eventually, one day, collaborating with widely dispersed others in order to send robots to Mars.
Tens of thousands of years from now, assuming Homo sapiens aiensis is still around, whether on this planet or some other, I have no doubt that they will be bipedal, symbol-generating apes, technologically proficient in ways we can’t even dream of yet.
But will they still be human in the way we think of humans today? Interested in the thoughts and emotions of others, eligible for mutual understanding? That’s going to depend on how, by whom, or what they are reared.
Thank you.
◆
contact me to discuss your storytelling goals!
◆
Subscribe to the newsletter for the latest updates!
Copyright Storytelling with Impact® – All rights reserved
Why Climate Action Is Unstoppable and Climate Realism Is a Myth – Al Gore at TED Countdown 2025
/in Climate Change, Environment, Government, Science, TED Talk/by Mark LovettThe narrative of planet earth, and of humanity itself, is being written by many authors. Some positive, others negative. And sometimes, extremely negative.
At the top of that list is climate change. A narrative the didn’t exist before the industrial revolution, but it’s now causing widespread death and destruction, today, through the end of the century, and beyond.
Former Vice President Al Gore knows this well, and continues to be a voice of reason, as well as hope, during these turbulent times. I wish I could share his enthusiasm, and I do hope that we take his advice and take action, but at the moment I don’t believe we’ll do enough, soon enough.
Which means that future generations will suffer. This outcome has become far worse do to the current administration’s intent on causing as much death and destruction as possible in the decades to come. Their climate change policy is nothing short of barbaric.
But I digress, as this article is highlighting Al Gore’s recent talk at the 2025 TED Countdown Summit on June 16, 2025. As we all know, a narrative thread that’s designed to slow progress on addressing the climate crisis involves a nonstop stream of lies and misinformation disseminated by the fossil fuel industry. In their latest PR con job, they’ve introduced the phrase “climate realism”.
Granted, climate change is a complex subject, and there’s no single answer. But without question the answer involves a dedication to mitigating the use of fossil fuels whenever and wherever possible. In his talk Al Gore features some of the progress that’s been made, but also talks about what still needs to happen.
And the interesting thing to realize, is that doing so is not only beneficial to the health of humanity, it’s financially beneficial. Win-Win. But the need for profit at any cost continues to threaten everyone on this planet. Our story is now being written by some very bad actors, and it’s a story I wish had a happier ending.
Transcript
Thank you very much for the warm welcome.
It’s been 10 years since the Paris agreement, and every single nation in the world, 195 nations agreed to try to get to net zero by mid-century. And let me deal with the elephant in the room, one nation, only one has begun the process of withdrawing, and the Trump administration has also:
But bear this in mind. During the first Trump four-year term, investments in the energy transition doubled. We have seen solar capacity more than double, electric vehicle sales have doubled, wind energy went up by almost 50% during his first term.
And we are seeing that 60% during his first four years of new energy came from renewable energy and coal investments went down almost 20%. So, there’s good news and there’s bad news. A lot has happened in the last ten years.
But I want to ask this question. The fossil fuel industry wants to ignore the amazing good news and they are labeling the commitments that the world made at the Paris negotiations as a fantasy, and they’re calling for an abandonment of the efforts to reduce fossil fuel burning. And they’re now advocating a new approach that they call, “Climate Realism.”
Well, climate realism, according to them, we should abandon the efforts to deal with the principal cause of the climate crisis, 80% of it comes from burning fossil fuels, and we should focus on adaptation as well, almost exclusively. Well, we need adaptation. A lot of people are suffering. But do we want to vastly increase the number of people that have to go through that hardship and suffering instead of dealing with the cause of the crisis and solving the climate crisis?
They, according to climate realism, historically, the energy transitions have taken place very slowly. So we have no right as human beings to even imagine that we could go faster in the future than what history has told us was the reality in the past, even though human civilization is at stake.
For the so-called climate realists, the goal of solving the climate crisis is way less important than other goals such as, especially, increasing energy access to developing countries, which is, obviously, important, we’ll deal with that, but they want to do it, obviously, by burning more fossil fuels.
According to climate realism, it’s just not practical to stop using the sky as an open sewer for the emissions from burning fossil fuels and the other emissions, Instead, we should just continue using the sky as an open sewer. So, where climate realism is concerned, I have some questions.
Is it realistic to ignore the 1 to 2 billion climate refugees that the climate scientists are warning us will cross international borders and have to move inside their own nations by 2050 because of the climate crisis? You know, the temperatures keep going up. Ten hottest years were the last 10. Last year, 2024 was the hottest year in all of history.
Yesterday in parts of the Persian Gulf, 52.6 degrees, and for those of us who use Fahrenheit, 126.7 degrees. A few days ago in Pakistan, 50.5 degrees, that’s 122.9 in Fahrenheit. And they’re telling us that as the temperatures go up and the humidity goes up, the few areas in the world today that are labeled physiologically unlivable for human beings are due to expand quite dramatically by 2070 unless we act to cover all of these vast, heavily populated areas.
Is it realistic to ignore this crisis? Look at what a few million climate refugees have done to promote authoritarianism and ultra nationalism. How can we handle 1 to 2 billion in the next 25 years? Already here in Kenya, there are 800,000 refugees. 300,000 of them in in this place, where of course the USAID cuts are now cutting the food aid 70%. Is that what they mean by adaptation?
We have to also ask if it’s realistic to ignore the devastating damage predicted to the global economy. Whole regions of the world are becoming uninsurable. We see this in my country where people are having their insurance canceled, they can’t get it renewed. We have seen predictions that we could lose $25 trillion in the next 25 years just from the loss of the value of global housing properties.
And over the next half century, according to Deloitte, it would cost the economy $178 trillion if we don’t act. But if we do act, we can add to the global economy by $43 trillion. You know, I had a teacher said we face the same choice in life over and over again, the choice between the hard right and the easy wrong. It seems hard to choose correctly, but it would turn out to be even harder to take what looks like the easy wrong.
Is it realistic to ignore the fact that right now Greenland is losing 30 million tonnes of ice every single hour? In Antarctica, decade by decade, the ice melting has accelerated. We’ve seen the doubling of the pace of sea level rise in the last 20 years and the predictions are that it’s going to continue dramatically.
Is it realistic to ignore the rapidly increasing climate crisis, extreme events that are occurring, practically every night on the television news? It’s like a nature hike through the Book of Revelation. We lost 3.5 trillion dollars just in the last decade.
And you know, the fact that these scientists were absolutely correct decades ago when they predicted these exact consequences, should cause us to pay a little more attention to what they’re predicting is in store for us in the years ahead if we do not act. The drought last year and continuing at some level in the Amazon, the worst drought in the history of the Brazilian Amazon, 90% of the Amazon River in Colombia went dry.
This is the third year in a row that we’ve had these massive fires in Canada. When I left Tennessee to fly over here, we were breathing in Nashville, Tennessee, smoke from the Canadian wildfires. And they’re still getting worse today. The wildfires have doubled over the last 20 years in frequency and they’re due to increase even more.
Is it realistic to ignore the massive health impacts of the climate crisis? You know, the University of, well, the World Health Organization has long told us it is the most serious health threat facing humanity. Just last week the University of Manchester released a new study warning that three species of fungi in the next 15 years, because of increasing temperatures and increasing precipitation, will pose a significant risk of infection to millions of people. The fact that the fungi are being pushed into the range where they can threaten humans, that is not a fiction.
The particulate air pollution from the burning of fossil fuels kills almost 9 million people a year, costs almost $3 trillion per year from the burning of fossil fuels for both energy and petrochemicals. Let me show you an example from my country. Cancer Alley is the stretch that runs from New Orleans to Baton Rouge, Louisiana. All these red plumes are particulate pollution that people are breathing in.
The green areas by the way are are majority minority, mostly African-American areas. In the middle of Cancer Alley, Reserve, Louisiana has the highest cancer rate in the United States, 50 times the national average, and they want to put even more petrochemical facilities there.
Is it realistic to totally ignore the acidification of the world’s oceans? 30% more acid than before the industrial revolution and 93% of all the heat is being absorbed in the oceans. That’s why the coral reefs are in such danger. 84% in danger right now, we’ve seen massive die offs.
That’s why a lot of the fish are at risk. 40 to 60 percent of all the fish species face an extremely high risk, as the rivers and estuaries, where they have spawning and in their embryonic stages, continue to heat up. And 50 percent of all living species that we share this planet with are at risk of extinction.
Is it realistic to ignore that? My faith tradition tells me that Noah was commanded to save the species of this earth. I think we have a moral obligation as well. Is it realistic to ignore the predictions of a fresh water scarcity crisis? Already 40% are are facing water scarcities.
In the mountain glaciers here in the Himalayas, one quarter of the world’s population depends on that meltwater, but depending on whether or not we act, 80% of all those glaciers will disappear in this century.
We can act. Now this just happened in Switzerland. A 600-year-old city was completely destroyed by a glacial avalanche. Now they’re adapting.
Is this realistic? To put white sheets over the remaining parts of the glacier? Well, God bless them, I hope it works. But these are the kinds of extreme measures that people are being pushed to in order to avoid reducing the burning of fossil fuels. Because the fossil fuel industry and their petrostate and financial allies have control over policy.
In lots of cities, particularly in places like India, the water wells are going dry. In Bengaluru, 4 million people now have to buy expensive water trucked in because their wells have gone dry.
What about the food crisis that scientists are predicting? Is it realistic to ignore that as well in order to avoid doing anything to reduce fossil fuel emissions?
Now, why also, do these so-called climate realists ignore all the good news about the miraculous decline in the cost of the alternatives to fossil fuel? Is it possibly because their business models are threatened ff there is a cheaper, cleaner alternative that creates many more jobs? Might not be good for them the way they calculate it. But the rest of us have a stake in this.
This could be why they’ve been consistently wrong in their predictions in the past. For example, Exxon Mobil in the year of the Paris agreement had a prediction about solar capacity in 2040, 840 gigawatts. Well, this year we’ve already tripled the number that they predicted for 15 years from now. In OPEC the same year predicted electric vehicle sales would barely increase.
Well, they were wrong. Here’s what it is actual sales to date right now. Same year, OPEC predicted that it was just unrealistic to think that solar power would ever be able to compete in cost with the burning of fossil fuels, but now it is by far the cheapest source of electricity in all of history.
Now, you know, a lot of other people have been surprised by how quickly these costs have come down. University of Oxford studied 3,000 past projections and the average predicted decline was 2.6% a year, the reality was 15% per year. And when you compound the number like that, it makes quite a difference.
Here are all the past projections from the International Energy Agency of what solar energy was likely to do. Their projections year by year. And here is the reality of what has actually happened. Uh, it really is quite extraordinary. My goodness. Nobody could have imagined that it would be this incredible, but it is, and it’s right before us, and they still want to ignore it.
Since 2015, the world has installed twice as much solar as all fossil fuels combined. Solar is the breakout winner in fuel sources. Electric vehicles have increased 34 times over since the time of the Paris agreement. Vehicle sales in China, 52% are already EVs and within five years the prediction is 82% of all car sales will be electric vehicles.
Also by the way, China in April installed 45 gigawatts of new solar capacity in one month. That’s the equivalent of 45 brand new giant nuclear reactors in in one month. It’s actually incredible what is happening and the cost of all of these clean energy technologies has come down quite dramatically, particularly solar and even more dramatic is utility-scale batteries, 87% down. That’s making a huge difference as well.
But I have to say this, there’s one thing that the so-called climate realists are right about. In spite of this progress, we are still moving too slowly to meet the goals of the Paris agreement. We have got to accelerate it. We have the ability to do so, but the single biggest reason we have not been able to move faster is the ferocious opposition to virtually every policy proposal to try to speed up this transition and reduce the emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.
And the fossil fuel industry has used a lot of bright, shiny objects to divert the public’s attention and deceive them into thinking there are solutions other than reducing fossil fuel use. For example, carbon capture and storage and direct air capture and the recycling of plastics. And, you know, they’re much better at capturing politicians than they are at capturing emissions.
They’re employing their captive politicians and policymakers to help confuse the public. Here’s an example. Tony Blair, speaking for his foundation, his foundation gets massive funding from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Azerbaijan, etc. He said, “Oh, well, the center of the battle has to be carbon capture and direct air capture.”
Well, he really should know better. You know, Upton Sinclair wrote in my country, years ago, “It’s difficult to get a man to understand something if his income depends on him not understanding it.” The income goes to the foundation, as I understand it.
But here is carbon capture. These are the ones operational. These are the ones that have applied for permits. These are the ones that have had the big public announcements. Oh, boy, look, we’re going for carbon capture.
We don’t have to reduce the burning of fossil fuel. We’ll capture it all as it goes out the smokestack. It is a fraud. It is a deception imposed on the people in order to try to change policy and to make the policy what they want.
And because they’ve captured the politicians, they have been able to force the taxpayers in countries around the world to subsidize fossil fuels, to actually subsidize the destruction of humanity’s future. What would happen if we got rid of those subsidies?
Well, the International Monetary Fund said that we would get $4.4 trillion in savings, which happens to be just about the exact amount we need to finance the transition to renewable energy. That’s where a lot of the money can come from. We’d also save a lot of lives and we we’d also reduce emissions by a third in five years and we’d reduce income inequality.
So, is it realistic to ignore this urgent need to reform the world’s financial infrastructure so that we can properly invest in the climate crisis? Most of the financing comes from private sources, but developing countries are not getting their share of it. We need to reform the policies that are leading to this because 100% of the increased emissions expected are going to come from the developing countries.
We’re about to see massive reductions in emissions. It’s really it may have already started especially in China with all their renewables, but the developing countries, that’s where the emissions increases are due to take place. And yet they only receive less than 19% of the world’s financing for clean energy, but almost 50% of the money flooding in for more fossil fuels. The single U.S. state of Florida has more solar panels than the entire continent of Africa.
That is a disgrace because Africa has 60% of the world’s prime solar resources, yet only 1.6% of the financing for renewable energy. But look at what’s happening with the investments for fossil fuels in Africa. There’s a dash for gas, there all of these new facilities. There are three times as many fossil fuel pipelines under construction and proposed for construction to begin in Africa as in all of North America.
Uh and you take those LNG terminals, the cost of one of them, there are 71 in in the works, 31 already existing, $25 billion. That’s the exact amount that would provide universal energy access to all of Africa. So maybe we could spend that money a little bit better. But instead of financing actual energy access to renewable energy, they want access to the resources to export it from Africa instead of giving access for Africans.
You know the potential for solar and wind in in Africa is 400 times larger than the potential energy from fossil fuels. Every single country in Africa could have 100% energy access using less than 1% of its land. Most including the country we’re in, less than one .1%. of their land.
What else are they ignoring? Well, they’re ignoring that with solar and wind, you don’t face the fuel supply chain risk, that you don’t face price volatility for fuel. Look at what’s happening energy oil and gas soaring because of the war in the Middle East. In fact, they don’t have an annual fuel cost at all.
So we should be moving in this direction, not least because it creates three times as many jobs for each dollar spent as compared to a dollar spent on fossil fuels. Why do they also ignore the fact that methane is as bad as coal when the leaks are factored in and the leaks are ubiquitous. And right now in the European Union, the fossil fuel lobbyists are arguing as hard as they can to stop legislation to try to deal with methane leaks because they think it’ll cause them some money.
So, what’s really behind this preposterous theory call they call climate realism? Could it be that they’re kind of panicking a little bit about the loss of their markets? According to the IEA, all of the fossil fuels are projected to peak within the next few years. We’ve seen since the Paris agreement a complete turnaround in where the majority of investment is going, and emissions may have already peaked in several of these sectors and this is according to the climate trace precise measurements of peaking and a lot of these sectors are ones that need even more attention.
Agriculture, steel, etc. But last year, if you look at all the new electricity installed worldwide, 93% of it was renewable, mostly solar. So, the IEA has told us long since. We have all the technologies we need and proven deployment models to reduce emissions 50% in this decade. And clear line of sight to the other 50%.
A friend of mine in Tennessee said, “If God wanted us to have unlimited free energy, he’d have put a giant fusion reactor in the sky.” Well, if you look at how long it took to install a gigawatt of solar 20 years ago, a full year, now it’s down to 15 hours and it’s on the way down still.
So, here’s what I believe that the climate, so-called climate realists are most wrong about. They don’t believe that we the people who live on this planet, have the capacity to make the changes necessary to save our future.
The greatest president in my country’s history, Abraham Lincoln, said at a time of dire crisis, “The occasion is piled high with difficulty. We must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, we must think anew.”
I believe that we as human beings have the capacity to recognize that our survival is at stake and that we need to move faster even though the big polluters have the political and economic power to try to block us.
We’ve got everything we need. The people are demanding change. The one thing that they tell us might be in short supply is political will, but always remember, political will is itself a renewable resource. Let’s get out there and renew it.
Thank you. Thank you very much.
Key Themes:
◆
contact me to discuss your storytelling goals!
◆
Subscribe to the newsletter for the latest updates!
Copyright Storytelling with Impact® – All rights reserved