Placeholder Image

字幕列表 影片播放

  • Let's talk about billions.

    譯者: Joyce Chou 審譯者: Ariel Hsu

  • Let's talk about

    我們來談談「億」吧

  • past and future billions.

    我們來談談

  • We know

    過去和未來的「億」

  • that about 106 billion people

    眾所皆知

  • have ever lived.

    在地球上生活過的人

  • And we know that most of them are dead.

    有一千零六十億

  • And we also know

    當然大多數人已經不在人世了

  • that most of them live or lived in Asia.

    我們還知道

  • And we also know

    他們大多數人生活在或曾經生活在亞洲

  • that most of them were or are very poor --

    我們還知道

  • did not live for very long.

    他們大多數人非常貧窮

  • Let's talk about billions.

    壽命不長

  • Let's talk about

    我們來談談「億」

  • the 195,000 billion dollars of wealth

    我們來談談

  • in the world today.

    現今世界

  • We know that most of that wealth

    高達195萬億美金的財富

  • was made after the year 1800.

    這些財富大部分

  • And we know that most of it

    是從1800年開始創造出來的

  • is currently owned

    而現在這些財富的

  • by people we might call Westerners:

    主要擁有者

  • Europeans, North Americans, Australasians.

    都是西方人

  • 19 percent of the world's population today,

    歐洲人、北美人和澳洲人

  • Westerners own two-thirds of its wealth.

    只佔了世界人口百分之十九的西方人

  • Economic historians

    卻擁有了全球三分之二的財富

  • call this "The Great Divergence."

    經濟歷史學家

  • And this slide here

    稱之為「大分流」

  • is the best simplification

    這張投影片

  • of the Great Divergence story

    最能讓我

  • I can offer you.

    簡單說明

  • It's basically two ratios

    「大分流」的故事

  • of per capita GDP,

    上面是兩個

  • per capita gross domestic product,

    平均每人的GDP比率

  • so average income.

    也就是每人平均國內生產總值

  • One, the red line,

    平均收入

  • is the ratio of British to Indian

    紅線的部分

  • per capita income.

    是代表英國人和印度人

  • And the blue line

    每人平均收入的比

  • is the ratio of American to Chinese.

    藍線則是

  • And this chart goes back to 1500.

    美國人和中國人的平均收入比

  • And you can see here

    這幅圖追溯到1500年

  • that there's an exponential Great Divergence.

    大家可以看到

  • They start off pretty close together.

    大分流的走勢

  • In fact, in 1500,

    這兩條曲線起初相當接近

  • the average Chinese was richer than the average North American.

    事實上在1500年

  • When you get to the 1970s,

    中國人普遍比美國人富有

  • which is where this chart ends,

    但到了1970年代

  • the average Briton is more than 10 times richer

    也就是這幅圖中時間的終點

  • than the average Indian.

    英國人平均比印度人

  • And that's allowing

    富有十倍

  • for differences in the cost of living.

    這就產生了

  • It's based on purchasing power parity.

    生活消費的差異

  • The average American

    這是建立在購買力對等基礎上

  • is nearly 20 times richer

    到了1970年代

  • than the average Chinese

    美國人平均

  • by the 1970s.

    比中國人

  • So why?

    富有二十倍

  • This wasn't just an economic story.

    這是為什麼

  • If you take the 10 countries

    這並不僅僅只是一個經濟問題

  • that went on to become

    看看這十個

  • the Western empires,

    後來成為

  • in 1500 they were really quite tiny --

    帝國的西方國家

  • five percent of the world's land surface,

    在1500年時,這些國家都很小

  • 16 percent of its population,

    僅占全球土地面積的百分之五

  • maybe 20 percent of its income.

    人口僅佔世界人口的百分之十六

  • By 1913,

    而收入在全球僅占百分之二十

  • these 10 countries, plus the United States,

    到了1913年

  • controlled vast global empires --

    包括美國在內的這十個國家

  • 58 percent of the world's territory,

    控制了全球大片土地

  • about the same percentage of its population,

    佔據了全球百分之五十八的勢力範圍

  • and a really huge, nearly three-quarters share

    而人口也佔了世界人口的百分之五十八左右

  • of global economic output.

    創造了全球

  • And notice, most of that went to the motherland,

    近四分之三的財富

  • to the imperial metropoles,

    請注意,大部分的財富都流入了這些國家

  • not to their colonial possessions.

    流入了帝國大都市裡

  • Now you can't just blame this on imperialism --

    而不是殖民地

  • though many people have tried to do so --

    我們不能只是怪罪帝國主義

  • for two reasons.

    儘管很多人這麼做

  • One, empire was the least original thing

    有兩項原因

  • that the West did after 1500.

    第一、1500年以後

  • Everybody did empire.

    西方國家都是帝國

  • They beat preexisting Oriental empires

    大家都建立帝國

  • like the Mughals and the Ottomans.

    之前建立的東方帝國被打敗了

  • So it really doesn't look like empire is a great explanation

    例如莫臥兒帝國和奧斯曼帝國

  • for the Great Divergence.

    所以帝國並不見得

  • In any case, as you may remember,

    足以解釋大分流的現象

  • the Great Divergence reaches its zenith in the 1970s,

    不知道各位是否記得

  • some considerable time after decolonization.

    到了1970年代

  • This is not a new question.

    大分流在非殖民時期後一段相當長的時間達到高峰

  • Samuel Johnson,

    這不是一個新問題了

  • the great lexicographer,

    著名辭典編篡家

  • [posed] it through his character Rasselas

    Samuel Johnson

  • in his novel "Rasselas, Prince of Abissinia,"

    透過他1759年所寫的小說

  • published in 1759.

    《阿比西尼亞國拉塞拉斯王子傳》中的人物拉塞拉斯

  • "By what means are the Europeans thus powerful;

    提出了這個問題

  • or why, since they can so easily visit Asia and Africa

    「歐洲人為何如此強大?

  • for trade or conquest,

    他們為何能輕而易舉地來到亞洲和非洲

  • cannot the Asiaticks and Africans

    進行貿易或征服

  • invade their coasts,

    而亞洲人和非洲人

  • plant colonies in their ports,

    為何無力攻占他們的海岸

  • and give laws to their natural princes?

    將他們的港口化為殖民地

  • The same wind that carries them back

    並控制他們的王子呢?

  • would bring us thither?"

    既然是同一股風,為何他只將他們送回家

  • That's a great question.

    卻將我們送去他們那裡?」

  • And you know what,

    這個問題問得很好

  • it was also being asked at roughly the same time

    無獨有偶

  • by the Resterners -- by the people in the rest of the world --

    幾乎在同一時期

  • like Ibrahim Muteferrika,

    西方國家之外的人

  • an Ottoman official,

    其中有

  • the man who introduced printing, very belatedly,

    一位奧斯曼帝國的大官

  • to the Ottoman Empire --

    也是後來將印刷術

  • who said in a book published in 1731,

    引入奧斯曼帝國的人

  • "Why do Christian nations which were so weak in the past

    在他1731年出版的一本書裡

  • compared with Muslim nations

    他說:「與穆斯林國家相比,

  • begin to dominate so many lands in modern times

    基督教國家原先顯得弱不禁風,

  • and even defeat the once victorious Ottoman armies?"

    但他們何以在現代統治了大片土地,

  • Unlike Rasselas,

    甚至戰勝了曾經盛極一時的奧斯曼帝國?」

  • Muteferrika had an answer to that question,

    和拉塞拉斯不同

  • which was correct.

    Muteferrika對問題做了回答

  • He said it was "because they have laws and rules

    答案還是正確的

  • invented by reason."

    他說;「因為他們制定了

  • It's not geography.

    合理的法律規章。」

  • You may think we can explain the Great Divergence

    這和地理環境無關

  • in terms of geography.

    各位可能認為我們能從地理的角度

  • We know that's wrong,

    解釋大分流

  • because we conducted two great natural experiments in the 20th century

    這個想法是錯誤的

  • to see if geography mattered more than institutions.

    我們在二十世紀進行了兩次自然實驗

  • We took all the Germans,

    來證明地理和制度就近哪個作用較大

  • we divided them roughly in two,

    我們把德國

  • and we gave the ones in the East communism,

    分成了兩部份

  • and you see the result.

    在東德推行共產主義

  • Within an incredibly short period of time,

    結果大家都看到了

  • people living in the German Democratic Republic

    在極短的時間裡

  • produced Trabants, the Trabbi,

    東德人

  • one of the world's worst ever cars,

    生產了特拉邦(Trabant)汽車

  • while people in the West produced the Mercedes Benz.

    是世界上性能最差的車款之一

  • If you still don't believe me,

    而西德人卻生產出了朋馳

  • we conducted the experiment also in the Korean Peninsula.

    這如果還不足以回答問題

  • And we decided we'd take Koreans

    我們又在朝鮮半島進行了實驗

  • in roughly the same geographical place

    我們決定

  • with, notice, the same basic traditional culture,

    將生活在同一地理位置

  • and we divided them in two, and we gave the Northerners communism.

    擁有共同文化習俗的朝鮮人

  • And the result is an even bigger divergence

    分成兩邊,並在北朝鮮實行共產主義

  • in a very short space of time

    結果朝鮮半島兩方

  • than happened in Germany.

    在更短的時間內

  • Not a big divergence in terms of uniform design for border guards admittedly,

    出現了大分流,比德國的情況更甚

  • but in almost every other respect,

    我承認,他們邊防軍制服的款式差別不大

  • it's a huge divergence.

    但在其他方面

  • Which leads me to think

    雙方存在極大的差異

  • that neither geography nor national character,

    這讓我不得不認為

  • popular explanations for this kind of thing,

    地理、國家特徵

  • are really significant.

    以及其他主流的解釋

  • It's the ideas.

    都站不住腳

  • It's the institutions.

    真正發揮作用的是思想

  • This must be true

    是制度

  • because a Scotsman said it.

    這應該是千真萬確的

  • And I think I'm the only Scotsman here at the Edinburgh TED.

    這可是一位蘇格蘭人說的

  • So let me just explain to you

    我想我是這裡唯一的蘇格蘭人

  • that the smartest man ever was a Scotsman.

    我來解釋一下

  • He was Adam Smith --

    世界上最聰明的人是一位蘇格蘭人

  • not Billy Connolly, not Sean Connery --

    他就是亞當‧斯密

  • though he is very smart indeed.

    不是比利‧康諾利或是史恩‧康納萊

  • (Laughter)

    雖然他也很聰明

  • Smith -- and I want you to go

    (笑聲)

  • and bow down before his statue in the Royal Mile;

    亞當‧斯密,你們都應該

  • it's a wonderful statue --

    到他在皇家麥爾大道的雕像前一鞠躬

  • Smith, in the "Wealth of Nations"

    這座雕像非常雄偉

  • published in 1776 --

    亞當‧斯密在1776年發表了

  • that's the most important thing that happened that year ...

    《國富論》

  • (Laughter)

    這可是當年最了不起的事情

  • You bet.

    (笑聲)

  • There was a little local difficulty in some of our minor colonies, but ...

    難道不是嗎?

  • (Laughter)

    雖然當時我們一些次要的殖民地出了點問題,但...

  • "China seems to have been long stationary,

    (笑聲)

  • and probably long ago acquired that full complement of riches

    他說:「中國似乎已經停滯很久了,

  • which is consistent with the nature of its laws and institutions.

    也許在很久以前,中國創造財富的能力已經發揮到了極致,

  • But this complement may be much inferior

    而這取決於該國法律和制度的性質。

  • to what, with other laws and institutions,

    但如果中國採用其他型式的法律和制度

  • the nature of its soil, climate, and situation

    那麼這一能力

  • might admit of."

    反而無法在同樣的土壤,氣候和條件下

  • That is so right and so cool.

    得到完全發揮。」

  • And he said it such a long time ago.

    這說得非常有道理

  • But you know, this is a TED audience,

    在那麼久以前,他就說出了這番話

  • and if I keep talking about institutions,

    但是,各位是TED的觀眾

  • you're going to turn off.

    如果我繼續談論制度

  • So I'm going to translate this into language that you can understand.

    你們可能就聽不下去了

  • Let's call them the killer apps.

    所以我得用通俗的白話告訴各位

  • I want to explain to you that there were six killer apps

    我們就把這些制度稱做「殺手級」應用程式吧

  • that set the West apart from the rest.

    我會逐一介紹六種「殺手級」應用程式

  • And they're kind of like the apps on your phone,

    解釋他們如何讓西方國家脫穎而出

  • in the sense that they look quite simple.

    它們就像你手機上的應用程式

  • They're just icons; you click on them.

    因為它們都很容易上手

  • But behind the icon, there's complex code.

    它們就像一個個圖標,手指一點就行了

  • It's the same with institutions.

    然而在圖標背後,則是複雜的程序

  • There are six

    制度也是如此

  • which I think explain the Great Divergence.

    我認為,這六個「殺手級」應用程式

  • One, competition.

    能夠解釋大分流形成的原因

  • Two, the scientific revolution.

    第一:競爭

  • Three, property rights.

    第二:科技革命

  • Four, modern medicine.

    第三:產權

  • Five, the consumer society.

    第四:現代醫藥

  • And six, the work ethic.

    第五:消費者導向社會

  • You can play a game and try and think of one I've missed at,

    第六:職業道德

  • or try and boil it down to just four,

    各位可以玩這個遊戲,看看我有沒有遺漏什麼

  • but you'll lose.

    或者試試看能否直接刪除其中兩個

  • (Laughter)

    但是你輸定了

  • Let me very briefly tell you what I mean by this,

    (笑聲)

  • synthesizing the work of many economic historians

    透過綜合經濟歷史學家的觀點

  • in the process.

    我來簡短解釋一下

  • Competition means,

    我的意思是

  • not only were there a hundred different political units in Europe in 1500,

    競爭代表

  • but within each of these units,

    1500年時歐洲不僅擁有一百多個政治單位

  • there was competition between corporations as well as sovereigns.

    而在這些單位中

  • The ancestor of the modern corporation, the City of London Corporation,

    既有組織間的競爭,又有主權國家之間的競爭

  • existed in the 12th century.

    現代機構的始祖,倫敦市法團

  • Nothing like this existed in China,

    12世紀時便存在了

  • where there was one monolithic state

    中國沒有這樣的制度

  • covering a fifth of humanity,

    中國的人口占世界總人口的五分之一

  • and anyone with any ambition

    國家實施中央集權制度

  • had to pass one standardized examination,

    胸懷大志的人

  • which took three days and was very difficult

    必須通過統一的科舉考試

  • and involved memorizing vast numbers of characters

    一考就是三天,考試難度很大

  • and very complex Confucian essay writing.

    要求記憶大量漢字

  • The scientific revolution was different

    還要寫繁複的儒家文章

  • from the science that had been achieved in the Oriental world

    科技革命和東方的科學成就

  • in a number of crucial ways,

    在很多重要方面

  • the most important being

    都有不同

  • that, through the experimental method,

    其中最大的不同在於

  • it gave men control over nature in a way that had not been possible before.

    科技革命通過實驗性方法

  • Example: Benjamin Robins's extraordinary application

    讓人們用前所未見的方式掌控自然

  • of Newtonian physics to ballistics.

    Benjamin Robins將牛頓物理學運用到彈道研究

  • Once you do that,

    就是個很好的例子

  • your artillery becomes accurate.

    這麼做

  • Think of what that means.

    能夠保證砲彈發射的精準度

  • That really was a killer application.

    這意味著

  • (Laughter)

    這個應用程式果然厲害

  • Meanwhile, there's no scientific revolution anywhere else.

    (笑聲)

  • The Ottoman Empire's not that far from Europe,

    同時科技革命只發生在西方

  • but there's no scientific revolution there.

    奧斯曼帝過離歐洲不遠

  • In fact, they demolish Taqi al-Din's observatory,

    但沒有發生科技革命

  • because it's considered blasphemous

    事實上,該國政府拆毀了科學家Taqi al-Din的天文觀測台

  • to inquire into the mind of God.

    認為該觀測台窺視上帝

  • Property rights: It's not the democracy, folks;

    褻瀆聖靈

  • it's having the rule of law based on private property rights.

    各位,產權不是民主

  • That's what makes the difference

    透過法律管理私有財產權

  • between North America and South America.

    北美洲和南美洲