Placeholder Image

字幕列表 影片播放

已審核 字幕已審核
  • TEDx Vienna. X= independently organized TED event

    TEDx維也納 X=獨立組織的TED活動

  • Hello everyone. Hi, welcome. How are you doing today? Good?

    哈囉 大家 歡迎 今天過得好嗎?

  • Yeah? It's a wonderful day, isn't it?

    嗯? 今天很棒 不是嗎?

  • Well, let me fix that for you. I'll talk about jobs.

    那我換一下好了 我將要談論工作

  • Can I have please a quick show of hands? Raise your hand

    請問我能夠快速看看各位的舉手嗎? 請舉起你的手

  • if you either work or know somebody close to you

    如果你在以下這些領域工作

  • who works in any of these areas:

    或知道熟人也在這些領域工作的話:

  • How about driving: That's trucks, delivery, buses, taxis, anything.

    關於開車的行業如何? 包括卡車 貨運 公車 計程車等等

  • Raise your hand. How about janitors?

    請舉起你的手 那保全警衛又是如何?

  • Housecleaning, cashiers or...

    清潔人員 收銀員或者是...

  • No one? No one knows anyone who works... Ok, good.

    沒有人嗎? 沒有人知道任何人的工作是在... 很好

  • Secretaries, real estate, accounting, retail, manufacturing, journalism...

    秘書 不動產 會計 零售 製造業 新聞業...

  • Ok, let's say it's about 70% of you. Good.

    好的 我想大概是70%左右 很好

  • Robots will steal your job.

    機器人將會偷走你的工作

  • Laughter, ridicule, contempt:

    嘲笑 揶揄 輕蔑:

  • This is how I was greeted by the establishment of economists

    這就是我如何被"主流"經濟學家招呼的方式

  • about four years ago, when I first started thinking about these issues.

    當我四年前開始思考這些問題的時候

  • At that time, I helped start an organization called the Zeitgeist Movement,

    在那時 我幫忙創建一個叫作"時代精神運動"的組織

  • and we were thinking of ways on how to build a better society.

    而我們當時正思考著如何建立一個更好的社會

  • At that time, nobody took us seriously, but things have changed now.

    那時候無人認真看待我們 但現在勢態已變

  • What changed? Well, very few people are laughing.

    改變了什麼呢? 呃 幾乎沒有人覺得好笑了

  • [In] 2009, Martin Ford comes up with [book] 'The Lights in the Tunnel',

    在2009年 Martin Ford寫了一本書叫作"隧道裡的光"

  • where he paints a picture of an increasingly automated economy:

    其中他描繪了一個日益自動化的經濟體系:

  • Lots of jobs are being replaced by machines,

    許多工作正被機械所取代

  • and very few new jobs are being created.

    而且幾乎沒創造出什麼新工作

  • [In] 2011, two MIT economists have pretty much the same thesis.

    在2011年 兩位麻省理工學院的經濟學家也有相當類似的論點

  • So, let's look at the evidence for this. Shall we?

    那麼讓我們看看證據吧 好嗎?

  • Kodak, the once undisputed giant of the photography industry,

    不用說 "柯達"曾經是攝影器材產業中的巨人

  • had a 90% market share in the US in 1976.

    在1976年的美國有高達90%的市占率

  • By the year 1984, they were employing 145,000 people, and in 2012,

    到了1984年 他們雇用了14.5萬名員工 而在2012年

  • they had a networth of negative $1 billion when they went bankrupt.

    當他們破產時 擁用十億美元的"負"資產淨值

  • Why? Because they failed to predict

    為什麼? 因為他們未能預測到

  • the importance of exponential trends when it comes to technology.

    科技的指數型發展趨勢所帶來的威力

  • On the other hand, Instagram, a digital photography company,

    另一方面 Instagram是一間數位攝影公司

  • [in] the same year (2012), had 13 employees;

    在2012同年只有13名員工

  • and they were sold to Facebook for $1 billion.

    但他們以10億美元的價值被賣給"臉書"

  • This is kind of ironic because Kodak pioneered digital photography.

    這對"柯達"而言是諷刺的 因為它是數位攝影的開拓先鋒

  • They actually invented the first digital camera

    它們實際上發明了第一台數位相機

  • when they came out in 1975 with a 0.01 Mpix digital camera,

    當它們在1975年製造出一台0.01百萬像素的數位相機時

  • but they thought it was a toy and they didn't pay attention,

    但他們認為這只是台玩具所以就不重視

  • so that's what happens with exponentials. We don't pay attention.

    因此這就是指數型科技進步的威力 人們並未注意到

  • Let's play a little game with you. Let's be a more interactive school: 30 Steps.

    讓我們玩點小遊戲吧 更有點互動性的學習:30步

  • Imagine I take 30 steps lineary: That's one, two, three...

    想像我直線前進了30步 也就是一步、兩步、三步...

  • where do I get if I get to 30?

    前進了30步後我會到達哪裡?

  • About the end of the stage right there.

    大概是在那邊的舞台尾端吧

  • How about if I take 30 steps exponentially? 2,4,8,16...

    但如果我用指數的方式前進30步呢? 即2、4、8、16步...

  • Where do I get?

    我會到哪裡?

  • Where? Outside?

    哪裡? 外面嗎?

  • Actually, I get to the Moon.

    實際上我會到達月球

  • By the way, this is not the scale. The Moon is much further away

    順便一提 這不是真正的比例規模 月球當然遠在天邊

  • and back, and I still have enough steps to circle the Earth

    但我仍然會有足夠的步數環繞地球

  • 8 times over.

    超過8圈

  • That's what exponential means. How do I know this?

    這就是"指數型"的意思 我如何知道這點呢?

  • I just asked Wolphram Alpha.

    因為我剛剛問了Wolphram Alpha(新的智慧搜尋引擎)

  • Foxconn [is] the world's largest manufacturer of electronic components.

    富士康是世上最大的電子零件製造商

  • They make pretty much anything, so if you've got something on your lap

    它們製造相當多的東西 所以如果有東西在你的膝部上

  • or in your pocket that makes noises and is blinky and bright,

    或你的口袋中 並且發出噪音還閃閃發亮

  • and it's probably tweeting right now, they made it.

    而且可能現在正發出吱吱聲 那就是它們製造的

  • Not just Apple, they make anything.

    不只製造蘋果的產品 而是製造任何東西

  • It's a multinational corporation worth $100 billion,

    不只製造蘋果的產品 而是製造任何東西

  • which employs 1.2 million people.

    雇用了120萬名員工

  • What are they doing? They're automating, of course.

    但它們正在做什麼? 當然是自動化了

  • In fact, they are about to deploy an army of 1 million robots

    事實上 它們即將部署100萬名機器人大軍

  • to 'cut rising labour expenses and improve efficiency'.

    以"減少上升的勞動成本並改善效率"

  • Canon is doing the same, going fully automated very soon.

    "佳能"公司也正在做同樣的事 很快就會完全自動化生產

  • Lots of other companies are following. Now, what if Walmart follows?

    許多其它公司都在跟進中 如果現在"沃爾瑪"跟進的話會怎樣?

  • [It's the] biggest multinational corporation in the world, employs 2.1 million people.

    它是世上最大的跨國公司 雇用了210萬名員工

  • What if they automate?

    如果它們自動化了怎麼辦?

  • Well, they can't, right? They don't have the technology to do that.

    呃 它們不能 對吧? 它們沒有那種科技

  • They most certainly do. Amazon knows this very well.

    但它們當然會有! 亞馬遜書店非常清楚知道這點

  • This is a graph made by fellow-author Andrew McAfee from MIT.

    這是MIT的作家Andrew McAfee製作的圖表

  • We pretty much agree on the analysis.

    我相當同意其分析

  • As you can see, profits and investments are all going up and up and up

    如同你可以看到的 利潤和投資全都不斷在上升

  • for corporate investments and multinational corporations;

    對於公司投資和跨國企業而言皆然

  • but the red line, which is the employment to population ratio

    但是警戒線在於 就業人口佔總人口的比例

  • is going down and down and down;

    正在逐漸下降

  • and we both agree that when it comes to automation,

    而我們都同意 當談到自動化時

  • we ain't seen nothing yet.

    我們還未看到最終的結果

  • This is the Google autonomous car.

    這是Google的自動駕駛車

  • You know, the futuristic car that drives itself without a human driver.

    你懂的 未來的車輛能自己駕駛而不需要人類

  • By the way, it's as cool as it sounds.

    順帶一提 它就跟聽起來一樣酷

  • I was inside, this is me at NASA a few months ago,

    我當時人在車內 我幾個月前在NASA的時候

  • and it's a pretty neat piece of technology. They have all sorts of sensors,

    它是相當不錯的科技結晶 擁有所有的感應器

  • lasers, GPS, and machine learning algorithms,

    雷射 全球衛星定位系統和機械學習演算法

  • drives itself. It's safer, better than any human driver, doesn't get tired,

    自動駕駛 這比任何人類駕駛員更安全且更好 機器不會累

  • follows every street rule, never crashes, never breaks any rule whatsoever.

    遵守每個交通規則 不會衝撞 不會任何違規等等

  • Basically it just works, and it's better than humans.

    基本上就是行得通 而且比人類更好

  • Problem is, 3.6 million people in the US alone

    但問題在於 光是美國就有360萬人

  • work driving, meaning they drive for a living.

    以開車為工作 即以駕駛維生

  • That's 2.6% of the population.

    這是總人口的2.6%

  • [In] Austria and Europe, they have very similar numbers.

    在奧地利和歐洲 也有類似的統計數字

  • I think these people might be affected by this kind of technology, don't you?

    我認為這些人們可能會受到這種科技的影響 不是嗎?

  • Accounting, retail, manufacturing, translations;

    會計 零售 製造業 翻譯

  • no one is safe.

    沒有人是"安全的"

  • Journalism, as the Wall Street Journal puts it

    關於新聞業 如同華爾街日報所言

  • "Software is eating the world."

    "軟體正在吞食世界"

  • What do we do?

    那我們怎麼辦?

  • Should we despair?

    應該感到絕望嗎?

  • How about putting taxes on technology?

    對於"科技"抽稅這招如何?

  • Impose more regulation?

    實施更多的管制?

  • Maybe do some education reforms?

    或者改革一下教育?

  • Basically, find any clever ways to get everyone a damn job!

    基本上就是要找到任何巧妙的方式 讓所有人都得到一份他媽的工作就對了!

  • That's what these guys are proposing.

    這就是大部份人的建議

  • That's what their presidential campaign is all about,

    這就是總統選舉在該該叫的東西

  • and it sounds reasonable enough.

    而且聽起來夠合理

  • After all, famously said by Voltaire is the sentence:

    畢竟 伏爾泰曾說過以下名句:

  • "Work saves us from three great evils: boredom, vice and need."

    "工作使我們免於三種重大罪行:無聊 罪惡與欲求"

  • He said that in 1759.

    這是他在1759年說的

  • Is that really the case, today, in this society?

    但在今日的社會中 真的是這樣嗎?

  • I think we might be missing a big opportunity.

    我認為我們可能錯過了大好機會

  • It was Confucius who said:

    子曰:

  • "Choose a job you love and you will never have to work a day in your life."

    "知之者不如好知者 好知者不如樂之者"

  • Brilliant, I agree.

    讚 我同意

  • Problem:

    問題:

  • Getting a job you love, one that is fulfilling,

    得到一個你喜愛的工作 且能夠帶來滿足感

  • and that allows you to follow your moral code today,

    也能讓你按照今日的道德標準來行事

  • I don't know about you, but it's pretty damn hard.

    我是不知道你啦 但這件事是他媽的相當困難

  • In fact, according to Deloitte Shifting that says

    事實上 根據Delloite Shift Index的數據顯示

  • "As much as 80% of the people hate their job."

    "多達80%的人厭惡他們的工作"

  • 80%, that's 4 out of 5, spending most of their useful lifetime

    80% 也就是五分之四的人 花費大部份的生命精華

  • doing something they don't particularly enjoy.

    從事他們不會特別享受的事物

  • Now in 2012, with this kind of technology at our fingertips,

    在2012年的現在 在我們的手指頭邊就有了這種科技

  • guys, doesn't that make you little

    各位阿 這不會讓你覺得

  • mad?

    有點不爽嗎?

  • A little bit?

    只有一點不爽?

  • We are in kind of a work paradox.

    我們處於一種"工作矛盾"中

  • Because we work long and hard hours on jobs we hate

    因為我們長時間辛苦工作在我們賭爛的職業上

  • to buy things we don't need

    去買我們不需要的東西

  • to impress people we don't like.

    讓我們不喜歡的人印象深刻

  • Genius! [weak applause]

    我們真是天才!

  • We have to adjust what the economy allows us to perform,

    我們必須調整經濟能允許我們去表現的程度

  • and the sad reality is that most jobs, unfortunately, are neither fulfilling,

    但很不幸 悲慘的現實是大部份的工作既不令人有成就感

  • nor do they create any value for society;

    也不會對社會創造任何價值

  • and I don't think I have to name which jobs. I think you know which ones.

    而我不認為我需要講出這些工作是哪些 我想你們知道的

  • By the way, they are going to be automated very soon,

    順帶一提 它們很快也會被自動化取代

  • and I suspect within our lifetime.

    我懷疑在我們這輩子就能看到

  • So, we are screwed.

    所以我們被困住了

  • That's the end of my talk, bye.

    我講完了 掰掰啦

  • No, I think there's light in the tunnel, because

    不 我認為黑暗的隧道中仍有一絲光明

  • I spent a year researching this problem,

    因為我花了一年研究這個問題

  • and I think I might have cracked it.

    並且認為我可能已經破解它了

  • I might have discovered what the purpose of life is.

    我可能已經發現了生命的目標為何物

  • Now I'm going to give it to you.

    現在我要跟各位分享

  • Right now, TEDex Vienna.

    此時此刻 在TEDx維也納

  • Would you like to know?

    各位想知道嗎?

  • Ok, here it goes:

    好的 就是這樣:

  • The purpose of life is

    生命的目標在於

  • to have robots steal your job.

    讓機器人偷走你的工作

  • All right, let's be serious. I suppose I don't know my purpose,

    好吧 認真一點講好了 假設我不知道生命的目標為何物

  • let alone your purpose, or that of anyone else;

    更別提你的目標或其它人的目標了

  • but I'm pretty sure what the purpose of life is not,

    但我相當確定生命的目標"不是"

  • and the purpose of life cannot be to work, produce

    而且也"不可能是"一直去工作 生產

  • and consume more and more and more.

    並不斷持續消費

  • So, here is a radical idea.

    所以這裡是一個激進的想法

  • The goal of the future is full unemployment, so we can play.

    未來的目標是"完全的失業" 這樣我們就能放鬆休閒

  • That's why we have to destroy the present political economic system.

    這就是為何我們必須摧毀目前的政治經濟體系

  • This is no light statement, considering that it comes from legendary author

    這不是輕浮的玩笑 因為此概念來自傳奇性的作家

  • and futurist Arthur C. Clarke.

    以及未來學家:亞瑟·查理斯·克拉克("2001太空漫遊"作者)

  • I think we must do away with the absolutely specious notion

    我認為我們一定要去除掉以下絕對似是而非的概念:

  • that everybody has to earn a living.

    即每個人必須工作以維生

  • It is fact today that 1 in 10,000 can create the technological breakthrough

    實際上 今日一萬名人類中的一位就可以創造科技突破

  • capable of supporting all the rest;

    也能養活所有剩下的人口

  • and so, the youth of today are absolutely right

    因此 今日的年輕人是完全正確的

  • in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living.

    他們已認知到"賺錢維生"這種豪洨胡扯

  • We keep inventing new jobs because of this false idea

    我們一直"發明"新的工作 只因為這種虛假的想法:

  • that everyone has to be employed in some kind of drudgery or another,

    即每個人一定要以某種方式從事無聊的工作或就業

  • because according to Darwinian-Malthusian theory,

    因為根據達爾文-馬爾薩斯的理論

  • they must justify their right to exist.

    這些東西一定要合理化自身權利的存在

  • And so, we have inspectors of inspectors,

    因此我們有了一群又一群的督察員

  • and people making instruments for inspectors to inspect inspectors.

    人們為督察員製造工具 再據此去監控菜鳥督察員

  • The true business of people should be to go back to school,

    人們真正要緊的事 應該是回去學校學習

  • and think about whatever they were thinking about

    並去思考他們正在考慮的任何東西

  • before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living.

    在某位仁兄過來告訴他們必須"賺錢維生"之前

  • I know what you're thinking.

    我知道你們正在想什麼

  • These are naive words.

    這些都是天真的話

  • Words of a young mind, oblivious to intricate and complex fabric of society

    一位年輕人的幻想 忘記了社會和經濟體系的

  • and the economic system. That might be true.

    複雜性 這點可能是正確的

  • Good thing they are not my words, though, but those of genius

    然而好消息是這些想法不是我講的 而是那些天才們

  • futurist Buckminster Fuller interviewed in 1970 by New York Magazine.

    像是未來學家巴克敏斯特·富勒在1970年接受紐約雜誌的訪問

  • Now, ok, this is all very nice; but look, we have to face reality, ok?

    好吧 這些看起來都非常棒 但記住我們必須面對現實 好嗎?

  • Tomorrow, [we've] got to go to work.

    明天我們仍然要去工作

  • Well, tomorrow is Sunday, but on Monday we've got to go to work,

    呃 明天是星期日 但在禮拜一我們必須去工作

  • buy food, pay the rent, pay the bills. Look, we can't just leave everything.

    買食物 付房租 付帳單 看吧 我們就是不能擺爛撇清這些東西

  • So, how do you solve this problem now?

    所以 你現在如何解決這個問題?

  • As I said, I spent years researching this problem.

    如我所述 我花費了數年的時間研究這個問題

  • Here is the short answer:

    這裡就是簡潔有力的答案:

  • There is no short answer.

    其實沒有簡潔有力的答案

  • That's why I wrote a book to explain this.

    這就是我為何寫了一本書來解釋這一點

  • I spent the last years traveling some 20 countries.

    我過去花費了數年時間旅行了大約20幾個國家

  • I went to NASA, I studied at Singularity University,

    我去了NASA 我在Singularity University學習

  • and I spoke with some of the greatest minds on this planet

    而且我跟地球上一些最偉大的心靈交流溝通

  • to tackle this problem.

    以處理這個問題

  • As it turns out, you need a plan and not just any plan.

    結果是你需要一個計畫 而不只是任何隨便的計畫

  • You need a multi-year plan that involves lots of people,

    結果是你需要一個計畫 而不只是任何隨便的計畫

  • and everyone has a different plan.

    但每個人都有各自不同的計畫

  • It's pretty complicated. I'm short in time,

    所以問題相當複雜 我的時間有限

  • and the TED guys told me to keep it simple;

    而TED的工作人員叫我簡扼說明即可

  • so I made a picture of two possible futures.

    所以我製作了一張圖片 顯示兩種可能的未來

  • To the left, we've got

    在左邊 我們有

  • exponential technologies and limited resources.

    指數型發展的科技和有限的資源

  • I think that's a fair assumption to make.

    我認為這是種合理的假設

  • We add the need for growth and labor for income,

    我們增加對於成長的需求並勞動獲得收入

  • That's the basis of every society today.

    這就是當今每一個社會的基礎

  • To me in a few years that equals to:

    對我而言 幾年之後這會表示:

  • mass unemployment, runaway climate change, resource depletion,

    龐大的失業 失控的氣候變遷 資源耗竭

  • starvation, worldwide violence and civil unrest.

    飢餓 全球暴動和公民騷動

  • Not too nice.

    不是太樂觀

  • To the right we still have exponential technologies and limited resources.

    在右邊我們仍然有指數型發展的科技和有限的資源

  • We can't really change that unless we obliterate the human race,

    我們確實不能改變這點 除非我們消滅人類這個物種

  • or break the laws of physics,

    或打破物理上的定律

  • but what we can change is our attitude, our goals and our purpose.

    但我們可以改變態度 目的和目標

  • Open source, DIY innovators, self-sustaining communities,

    開源 DIY的創新者 自給自足的社群

  • I think this will redefine the idea of work.

    我認為這將重新定義"工作"的概念

  • By letting go the idea of infinite growth and labor for income,

    藉由拋棄"無限成長"和"勞動獲得收入"這些概念

  • we can use our ingenuity.

    我們可以利用我們的天才

  • Instead of finding clever ways to get everyone a new job (maybe useless),

    而不是找到巧妙的方式讓所有人都有新工作(況且可能還是無用的工作)

  • we can use the same ingenuity to work less, have more free time,

    我們可以利用同樣的天才來減少工作 擁有更多自由時間

  • have more fulfilling lives,

    享有更圓滿的生活

  • restore global resource balance and generally have a more resilient system.

    恢復全球資源的平衡 並大致來說有一個更堅韌的體系

  • Ah ha! You, Sir, are a techno-utopian!

    阿哈! 先生 你是科技烏托邦主義者!

  • You believe technology solves everything! That's what everyone tells me.

    你相信科技能解決任何問題! 這是每個人告訴我的事

  • To the contrary!

    但正好相反!

  • I believe technology is merely a facilitator of your intention.

    我相信科技僅僅是一項推動個人意圖的工具

  • Look back to the picture. If you subscribe to the idea

    看回圖片吧 如果你認同這個概念

  • that we have infinite needs that require an infinite amount of work

    即我們有無限的需求並需要無限數量的工作

  • and infinite growth to be satisfied (which, by the way, is impossible)

    還要滿足無限的成長(順帶一提 這是不可能的)

  • exponential technology will help you get there exponentially faster

    那麼指數型發展的科技反而才更能幫助你 更快以指數型的進展

  • to these awful results.

    實現這些驚艷的結果

  • Ok, but we've been living like this for thousands of years,

    好吧 但我們已經一直用舊方式生活了數千年之久

  • are we supposed to just give that up?

    我們應該要放棄嗎?

  • Isn't that against human nature?

    這不是違反人性嗎?

  • Well,