Translator: Maurício Kakuei Tanaka Reviewer: Leonardo Silva
Good evening. My name is Pietro Boselli.
And...
I'm an engineer,
and a model.
So, you know, this is my life.
It's been like both of them.
Some of my colleagues in academia think that I've completely lost my mind,
but this is what I do.
In the course of my life, I focused on three things mainly.
One is academia,
my engineering studies,
and my PhD.
Fitness is another big thing in my life.
You know, I'm a fitness model, and a fashion model.
So fashion is another big thing.
Despite the diversity, I managed to survive pretty well, I think.
From my life experience,
I could definitely support the thesis that there exists
an interdisciplinary approach to life,
that anything that you learn from one instance
can add value to something apparently distant.
For example,
I could argue that the confidence in science helps you with modeling.
Or that the training regime of the fitness athlete
can give consistency to your scientific studies,
or that mechanics can be applied to your body.
But I want to be more generic.
I want to say that if you focus on something very specific in your life,
that doesn't mean that you can't excel as something completely different.
The human intellect operates organically as a whole,
with creativity and rationality being subsets of his ability.
And this is what I'm here to prove today.
I dedicated eight years of my life to engineering.
So I'm going to start from this area.
In engineering,
an interdisciplinary approach is one that results from different branches of science
in order to tackle a specific design problem.
Could we apply concepts of natural evolution
to, say, the design of a jet engine?
Of course, we can.
This is what computer scientists and engineers have realized,
that natural evolution is a very effective optimization process.
So when we look for a solution to a design problem,
instead of just looking for it,
we can apply a genetic algorithm, and evolve this solution.
My question here is,
"Can we apply this concept to our life in order to find our optimum?"
And I say, "Why not?"
But before I proceed any further,
let me elaborate a bit more on that, a couple of concepts from genetics,
especially to genetic operators of mutation and crossover.
Of course,
I could give the classic example of the poor giraffe.
One day, she just found herself with an unnaturally long neck,
because of a genetic mutation.
And despite the bullying during her early life,
from the other calves,
she suddenly realized that she had an advantage,
and confidence kicked in,
and her mates soon realized that maybe it was a good idea
to pass on that freaky genetic trait to other generations,
if you know what I mean.
But the nature of my talk
allows me to reinvent, completely, the way genetics is taught in schools.
So, picture a child...
If you can't picture, there she is.
She's given a magic box of colors for the very first time.
Her taste in picking a color from the box resembles natural selection.
You know, it's an expression of fitness of a color.
Because of her young age,
her taste is untainted by empirical or rational items.
The colors are magic,
so they can mix between themselves.
Two colors can mix to create a third
and, you know, be as promiscuous as they want,
in this immoral reproductive frenzy.
And two colors
that are very similar, when mixed together,
don't create something that is of interest to the child.
For example, when blue and a slightly diferent tone of blue
are mixed together.
Not much interest.
But if blue and yellow are mixed together,
"How amazing! Green is created."
That will definitely be picked as a new favorite by the child.
But what would happen if colors, instead of just mixing between themselves,
suddenly decided to...
change radically,
like dry more rapidly or slowly,
change texture,
become sparkly, fluorescent, matte?
And then, who knows,
the child might absolutely love sparkles, and hate the matte finish.
And the new love for sparkles will surpass all.
So a new sparkly green will be chosen over the old green.
And maybe she will paint a longneck giraffe.
So...
in our life,
like the child slowly creates the painting that she's happy with,
every decision we take,
every course of action,
every opinion we form,
slowly goes to evolve our life
to what it will ultimately be,
and to what we'll ultimately be happy with.
In our life, I like to compare the mixing of the colors
to crossovers.
And crossover in our life is learning,
how we take all the information from every different aspect of our life,
how we put all our memories together, and create our line of thought.
Mutation, on the other hand, is more radical.
It carries an element of innovation, of revolution.
And mutation is...
I would like to compare it, in our life, to creativity.
So, crossover is learning; mutation is creativity.
How do we take something that, in our life,
we always learned to be correct,
to be successful,
and we completely reinvent the status quo?
So the exhortation here is to learn as much as you can,
and to be a visionary, to think outside of the box.
So how do we achieve this versatility?
The first step is to realize the analogies
between all different extents of human endeavor.
The inventor and the artist used to be one and the same in the past, right?
They used to be ingenious and creative figures,
just like the philosopher and the physicist.
They were analyzers, investigators,
one single figure,
and now these figures have been detached, and categories have been created.
But we need these categories.
Isn't modern physics truly metaphysics?
The artist and the engineer are both creators.
One creates using paint, rhymes, and music.
The other uses mathematical modeling and physics as tools for creation.
Both individuals can visualize the end product in their head,
and then materialize it through a set of physical and intellectual constraints.
For example, we don't need a fridge;
we need coldness.
We don't need a heater; we need warmth.
The final shape and form of the object are contingent, not necessary.
We don't need a CD player; we need to play music.
So when we invented MP3...
Well, suddenly the CD player is obsolete, but the need for music remains.
We don't need a plane, or a car - we definitely don't need the car;
we need transportation, alright?
So what we physically create,
as artists, or engineers,
is the result of this set of constraints,
and our knowledge,
in order to turn a concept into reality.
So the engineer needs to provide heat, speed, stability.
And the poet, the artist,
they need to provide awe, inspiration, passion, wrath, infatuation.
The final art piece is the result of the constraints that we have.
So we have to put the layers of paint down, one by one.
And only the painter can visualize the end product.
The infinite sentiment of the poet
can only be materialized in the consciousness of someone else
through the vessel of language.
If this artist could transmit these emotions, this vision
to the next person directly - say, by telepathy -
they wouldn't be needed to master the use of colors,
or the use of rhymes.
Just like we don't need a CD player
if I can play the music in my phone right now.
In a similar way,
the final form of the engineering design
is dictated by the constraints and the knowledge that we have
in order to go from the function through to the form.
And, for example, architecture is a very clear example
of how the balance between function and form becomes a solid link.
Architecture doesn't provide just a simple practical need,
but also it provides for us a spiritual need.
It gives us identity as a society, or a family in our home,
and it pushes the boundaries of technology whilst heavily relying on them.
In a similar way,
all forms of art rely on technology.
Imagine when photography or cinematography were invented.
New forms of art were born.
In a similar way,
the new digital era has expanded
the possibilities for creativeness.
For example, I've been called a YouTube creator...
How amazing!...
after years that I spent designing steam turbines.
It is also true, however,
that modern economies rely heavily on specialization,
and this complexity has increased the gap between creativity and functionality.
The civil engineer and the architect are separate figures,
but it doesn't need to be that way.
I'd like to give a message to you all today, and that is,
do not place boundaries in yourself.
And I want to quote Michelangelo.
I love this quote.
He said that,
"The greatest danger for [most] of us
[lies] not [in] setting our aim too high and falling short;
but [in] setting our aim too low, and achieving our mark."
And whilst -
His masterpieces are clear examples of setting your aim high.
And I think that setting your aim high
means also expanding your horizons, and venturing out there.
And explore all your capabilities,
or your talents,
even if it's completely different from what you always have done.
We all have heard the saying,
"Jack of all trades, master of none," right?
And while admittedly very persuasive,
its subtle and elusive negativity is also very dangerous.
I always wondered
what would have been Leonardo da Vinci's reaction to this saying,
"Be careful, Leo!
Jack of all trades, master of none."
(Laughter)
And...
I am 27 years old.
In my limited life experience,
I have not achieved anything too remarkable.
However, I had my fair share of naysayers.
I heard too many times
that I couldn't be a model and a mechanical engineer;
that I couldn't have a high fitness regime
and focus on my studies;
that I was working out way too much for fashion.
And more generally, moving on from my personal life,
too often people dismiss
the ability of the mathematician, or the computer scientist,
to appreciate art.
The accuracy and meticulousness of the performing artists
are always overlooked by the academic community.
The politicians smile
at the diplomatic ability of the economists,
and the fashion choices of, say, the construction worker
are frowned upon.
But perhaps, somewhere out there, someone is pushing these boundaries away;
someone is precipitating these stereotypes into unavoidable sinking.
In this clay-footed statue, I have made a small dent myself.
I've surpassed all awkwardness, and many awkward moments in my life,
like when I had to explain to a fellow model
that the book I was reading was on mathematics,
despite only letters appearing in it,
and elucidating fellow engineers
that a runway show
is not an activist protest on a plan airport expansion.
Or again that success in fashion comes at the price of hard work,
just as much as in engineering.
I will never now or again hide my talents, as none of us should.
And we all have more than one.
Being a visionary
is simply a simultaneous expression of all talents within ourselves.
Thank you.
(Applause)