Name: 如何善用你的野心 | 灰色地帶 (How to use your ambition for good | The Gray Area)
Uploaded: 2025-06-17T17:01:58.000Z
Duration: 50 min 52 s

what do you want to look back on when you lie on your deathbed? All the powerpoints you know you hated to make or all the reports you wrote that no one ever wanted to read, all the products that you didn't believe in that you still spend a lifetime selling?

當你躺在病床上時，你想回顧什麼？所有你知道自己討厭做的演示文稿，所有你寫的沒人願意看的報告，所有你不相信卻仍然花了一輩子時間推銷的產品？

反身代名詞

Seems pretty sad to me. We're told from a young age to achieve. Get good grades, get into a good school, get a good job, be ambitious about earning a high salary or a high status position. Some of us love this endless climb but lots of us at least once in our lives find ourselves asking what's the point of all this ambition?

在我看來，這很可悲。我們從小就被告知要有所成就。取得好成績，進入好學校，找到好工作，雄心勃勃地想要獲得高薪或高職位。我們中的一些人喜歡這種無止境的攀登，但很多人一生中至少有一次會發現自己在問，所有這些雄心壯志有什麼意義？

程度副詞

The fat salary or the fancy title aren't those pretty meaningless measures of success?

豐厚的薪水或華麗的頭銜難道不是衡量成功的毫無意義的標準嗎？

One proposed solution is to stop being ambitious and start being idealistic instead. You hear this from a lot of influencers. Follow your passion. Small is beautiful. The idea is that you should drop out of the capitalist rat race and do what you love. Yoga maybe or watercolor painting even if it makes very little positive impact on the world. But what if instead of trying to be less ambitious we try to be more ambitious about the things that really matter? Like helping others.

一個建議的解決方案是停止野心勃勃，轉而開始理想主義。很多有影響力的人都這麼說。追隨你的激情。小即是美。這個觀點認為，你應該跳出資本主義的 "老鼠賽跑"，做自己喜歡的事情。也許是瑜伽，也許是水彩畫，即使它對世界的積極影響微乎其微。但是，如果我們在真正重要的事情上不去追求更低的目標，而是追求更高的目標呢？比如幫助他人。

In an era when there's so much chaos, injustice and frankly a feeling of widespread despair it's worth asking what would the world look like if we start measuring our success not in terms of fame or fortune but in terms of how much good we do?

在這個充滿混亂、不公正和普遍絕望情緒的時代，我們不禁要問，如果我們開始不以名利來衡量我們的成功，而是以我們做了多少好事來衡量我們的成功，這個世界會變成什麼樣？

I'm Sigal Samuel and this is The Gray Area.

我是西格爾-塞繆爾，這裡是《灰色地帶》。

Today's guest is historian and author Rutger Bregman. He's probably best known for what he yelled at policymakers at Davos a few years ago. Taxes, taxes, taxes. He's tried to get billionaires to pay their fair share in taxes and he's also argued for other policies that could make life better for everyone like a universal basic income. Now he's written a new book called

今天的嘉賓是歷史學家、作家魯特格-佈雷格曼（Rutger Bregman）。他最為人熟知的可能是幾年前他在達沃斯對政策制定者大喊的那句話："稅收、稅收、稅收。稅，稅，稅。他曾試圖讓億萬富翁們繳納他們應繳納的稅款，他也曾主張採取其他政策，讓每個人都能過上更好的生活，比如全民基本收入。現在，他又寫了一本新書，書名叫

Now he's written a new book called Moral Ambition which urges us to stop wasting our talents on meaningless work and start trying to do more good for the world. He wants us to be both ambitious and idealistic. To devote ourselves to solving the world's biggest problems like malaria and pandemics and climate change. I invited Rutger on the show because I find his message inspiring and to be honest I also have some questions about it. I want to dedicate myself to work that feels meaningful but I'm not sure that work that helps the greatest number of people is the only way to do that. So in this conversation we'll explore all the different things that can make our lives feel meaningful and ask are some objectively better than others? Hey Rutger welcome to the show. Thanks for having me good to see you. Your book is called Moral Ambition.

現在，他又寫了一本名為《道德野心》的新書，敦促我們不要再把才華浪費在毫無意義的工作上，而要開始努力為世界做更多好事。他希望我們既要有雄心壯志，又要有理想主義。致力於解決世界上最大的問題，比如瘧疾、流行病和氣候變化。我邀請魯特格爾來參加節目，是因為我覺得他的觀點很有啟發性，而且說實話，我對此也有一些疑問。我想投身於有意義的工作，但我不確定幫助最多人的工作是否是唯一的途徑。是以，在這次對話中，我們將探討所有能讓我們的生活感覺有意義的不同事物，並詢問一些事物是否客觀上比其他事物更好？嘿，魯傑，歡迎來到節目。謝謝

Why should people be morally ambitious? My whole career I've been fascinated with the waste of talent that is going on in modern economists. There's this one study from two Dutch economists done a couple of years ago and they estimate that around 25 percent of all workers think that their own job is socially meaningless or at least doubt the value of their job. That is just insane to me.

人為什麼要有道德抱負？在我的職業生涯中，我一直對現代經濟學家的人才浪費現象非常著迷。荷蘭的兩位經濟學家幾年前做了一項研究，他們估計大約有25%的工人認為自己的工作沒有社會意義，或者至少懷疑自己工作的價值。這在我看來簡直是瘋了。

I mean this is five times the unemployment rate and we're talking about people who have often excellent resumes you know who went to very nice universities. I'm going to Harvard tomorrow to speak to students there and well it's an interesting case in point 45 percent of Harvard graduates end up in consultancy or finance. Not saying all that is totally socially useless but I do wonder whether that is the best allocation of talent. I mean these people could go on and do great things and as you know we face some pretty big obvious problems out there. Whether it's you know the threat of the next pandemic that may be just around the corner. Terrible diseases like malaria and tuberculosis killing millions of people. The problem with democracy breaking down. I mean the list goes on and on and on and so I've always been frustrated by this enormous waste of talent. Now I'm not saying that morality should suck up everything. I'm personally a pluralist. I think that there are many things that are important in life. You know family, friends, music, art and you don't want to let morality dominate everything but I think in a rich well-rounded life it does play an important role and if we're going to have a career anyway we might as well do a lot of good with it. What about that question specifically about you know someone comes to you and says

我的意思是，這是失業率的五倍，而我們談論的往往是那些擁有出色履歷的人，你知道，他們都上過非常好的大學。我明天要去哈佛大學和那裡的學生交流，這是一個有趣的例子，45%的哈佛畢業生最終從事諮詢或金融工作。我並不是說這些在社會上毫無用處，但我確實懷疑這是否是對人才的最佳分配。我的意思是，這些人可以去做偉大的事情，正如你所知道的，我們面臨著一些非常明顯的大問題。你知道的，下一次大流行病的威脅可能就在不遠處。像瘧疾和肺結核這樣的可怕疾病會奪走數百萬人的生命。民主崩潰的問題我的意思是，這樣的例子不勝枚舉，所以我一直對

I'm a third grade teacher. I'm a social worker. Am I not being morally ambitious enough? So half of the country already works in these so-called essential jobs. We discovered that during the pandemic that you know when some people go on strike we're in real trouble. So my point here is that half of the country doesn't need a lecture from me about being morally ambitious. They're already working in essential jobs. I'm indeed more interested in preaching to my own people to honestly quite a few of my friends. We used to have big ideals and dreams when we were still in university. You know we wrote these beautiful application essays about how we were going to fix tax avoidance and tax evasion. How we're going to tackle global hunger and work at the United Nations and look at us. What has happened? It's pretty sad isn't it? Now we're old and wrinkled and complacent. Yeah. Something has gone wrong I would say. So that doesn't mean that I don't think anyone can be morally ambitious. Rosa Parks was a seamstress. Lech Walesa you know the great social revolutionary in Poland. He was an electrician. So I mean history is littered with examples of people who weren't very privileged and still did a lot of good. But they don't need a lecture from me I think. I'm mainly talking to people who shouldn't just check their privilege but also use that privilege to make a massive difference. What role does personal passion play in that? You write in the book don't start out by asking what's my passion. Ask instead how can I contribute most and then choose the role that suits you best. Don't forget your talents are but a means to an end. Yeah I think follow your passion is probably the worst career advice out there. We at the School for Moral Ambition, an organization I co-founded, we deeply believe in the Gandalf-Frodo model of changing the world. So I always like to say that Frodo, you know, he didn't follow his passion. Gandalf never asked him, oh what's your passion Frodo? He said look this really needs to be done. This needs to be fixed. You got to throw the ring into the mountain.

我是一名三年級教師。我是一名社會工作者。我的道德抱負還不夠遠大嗎？全國已經有一半人從事這些所謂的基本工作了我們發現，在大流行病期間，當一些人罷工時，我們就會遇到真正的麻煩。所以我想說的是，全國一半的人不需要我說什麼要有道德抱負。他們已經在從事必要的工作了。老實說，我對自己人的說教更感興趣，我的不少朋友也是如此。我們還在上大學的時候，就有遠大的理想和夢想。你知道，我們寫過這些漂亮的申請論文，說我們要如何解決避稅和逃稅問題。我們要如何解決全球飢餓問題，如何在聯合國工作，看看我們。結果呢？很可悲，不是嗎？現在我

If Frodo would have followed his passion he would have probably, you know, been a gardener, having a life, you know, full of second breakfasts, pretty comfortable in the shire and then the orcs would have turned up and murdered everyone he ever loved. So I think the point here is pretty simple.

如果佛羅多追隨自己的熱情，他可能會成為一名園丁，過著充滿二次早餐的生活，在郡裡過得很舒服，然後獸人就會出現，殺了他愛過的所有人。所以我覺得重點很簡單

Find yourself some wise old wizard, a Gandalf. Figure out what are some of the most pressing issues that we face as a species and ask yourself how can I make a difference.

給自己找一位睿智的老巫師，甘道夫。找出我們人類面臨的一些最緊迫的問題，然後問問自己，我怎樣才能有所作為。

And then you will find out that you can become very passionate about it. It's just don't start with looking at your navel and thinking oh what is it for me? Just ask smart people out there and become passionate about what they say. So you're saying do the work first, trust that the passion will come later? Absolutely, yeah. And I've got a couple of examples of that in the book.

然後你就會發現，你可以對它充滿熱情。只是不要一開始就看著自己的肚臍眼，然後想哦，這對我來說是什麼呢？問問外面的聰明人，然後對他們說的話充滿熱情。所以你的意思是，先做工作，相信激情會隨之而來？當然，沒錯。我在書中舉了幾個例子。

One school I've got a whole chapter on is called Charity Entrepreneurship. They've since rebranded as Ambitious Impact but it's a school that I like to describe as the Hogwarts for do-gooders. So they recruit really driven entrepreneurial people who want to start a highly effective non-profit and they continuously research this question. It's called prioritization research, thinking about what are some of the most pressing issues we face.

有一所學校我專門寫了一章，叫做 "慈善創業"。他們後來改名為 "雄心影響力"，但我喜歡把這所學校形容為 "慈善家的霍格沃茨"。是以，他們招募真正有幹勁、想創辦高效非營利組織的創業者，並不斷研究這個問題。這就是所謂的優先級研究，思考我們面臨的最緊迫的問題是什麼。

And then they find these founders of these non-profits and they basically match the founders not only with each other so that you have a co-founder but also with these tasks, right? You basically get a mission. And one of the most successful charities they've launched is called the Lead Exposure Elimination Project. I believe you guys have also written about them. That's right. One of the co-founders is Lucia Coulter. She used to be a doctor at the

然後，他們會找到這些非營利組織的創始人，基本上，他們不僅會為創始人牽線搭橋，讓你有一個共同創始人，還會為你安排這些任務，對吧？基本上，你會得到一個任務。他們發起的最成功的慈善組織之一叫做 "消除鉛暴露項目"。我相信你們也寫過關於他們的文章。沒錯。聯合創始人之一是露西婭-庫爾特（Lucia Coulter）。她曾經是

NHS. Loved their work but at the same time she was like, can't I do more good, right? I'm currently working as a doctor in a very rich country, mostly treating patients who are already relatively old.

NHS她很喜歡他們的工作，但同時又想，我就不能多做點好事嗎？我現在在一個非常富裕的國家當醫生，主要治療年紀已經比較大的病人。

It's beautiful work but I want to do more good. And you should talk to her now. I mean she's incredibly passionate about the work she does. Okay, but so that's a good example. So it's not that she completely ditched what she was already doing and her existing passions, right? She found a way to take her passion for healthcare or for global health and sort of put it on a different scale but still using her existing core passion and skill set. That's a good point. Maybe we got to be passionate on a meta level, you know, about our higher level goals. You can be really passionate about making the world a better place, helping a lot of people, improving global health, something like that. But it's quite risky if you get too attached to a certain intervention or something like that. I think that's a very sure way of massively limiting your impact. And you see it a lot, sadly. I've been walking around in the world of philanthropy for the past two years and it just drives me nuts how many of these rich people are all the time, you know, they're gazing at their navel. And like you don't have to come up with the answer yourself. The research has already been done, right? Why do you have to be the one, you know, who needs to have this epiphany about, oh, it's the pandas in this specific region that really need our help.

這工作很美，但我想做更多好事。你現在應該和她談談她對自己的工作充滿熱情好吧，這是個很好的例子。所以，她並不是完全放棄了她已經在做的事情和她現有的激情，對嗎？她找到了一種方法，把她對醫療保健或全球健康的熱情，放在一個不同的規模上，但仍然使用她現有的核心熱情和技能。說得好。也許我們應該對更高層次的目標充滿熱情。你可以熱衷於讓世界變得更美好，幫助很多人，改善全球健康狀況，諸如此類。但是，如果你過於執著於某種干預措施或諸如此類的東西，就會有相當大的風險。我認為，這樣做肯定會極大地限制你的影響力。可悲的是，你經常看

There are already Gandalfs and Dumbledores working on it for you, figuring it out.

已經有甘道夫和鄧布利多在為你想辦法了。

Exactly, exactly. And it takes a team to make a big difference. I think it can be quite liberating as well to not have to fight your passion anymore. I speak to quite a few, you know, teenagers and people in their 20s about what they should do with their career.

沒錯，沒錯。要想大有作為，需要一個團隊。我認為，不必再與自己的激情作鬥爭也是一種解放。我跟很多青少年和20多歲的人談過，他們應該如何對待自己的職業生涯。

And a lot of them find a lot of relief in this message that they don't have to find their passion, that there are other people out there who have a job for them to do, right?

他們中的很多人從這一資訊中找到了很多安慰，他們不需要找到自己的激情，外面還有其他人有工作給他們做，對嗎？

That they can just sign up for it. Interesting. In your book, there is one Venn diagram that caught my eye. It's, you know, these three circles. The first is labeled sizable. The second is solvable. And the third is sorely overlooked. And in the middle where they all overlap, it says moral ambition. Explain that to me. What does that mean?

他們可以直接報名參加。真有意思在你的書中，有一張維恩圖引起了我的注意。它有三個圓圈。第一個圈標註為 "可解決"。第二個是可解決的第三個被嚴重忽略中間重疊的地方寫著 "道德抱負給我解釋一下這是什麼意思？

Yeah. So this is the triple S framework of making the world a wildly better place.

是啊這就是讓世界變得更美好的三S框架。

And it's connected to this simple point that choosing the cause you work on is probably the most important question you got to answer. And so at the School for Moral Ambition, we work with this framework in selecting these causes. Take something like climate change, for example.

這與一個簡單的觀點有關，即選擇你所從事的事業可能是你要回答的最重要的問題。是以，在 "道德雄心學校"（School for Moral Ambition），我們利用這一框架來選擇這些事業。以氣候變化為例。

Climate change is obviously a very sizable problem. It's very big, threatens a lot of people.

氣候變化顯然是一個非常嚴重的問題。它非常大，威脅著很多人。

It's also very solvable, right? We know what we can do. We've got a huge toolbox, a lot of solutions out there that are waiting to be implemented. And then the question is, is it also sorely neglected? And the good news here is less and less so. You could ask yourself, what was the best time to be a climate activist? And the answer is not now.

這也很好解決，對吧？我們知道我們能做什麼。我們有一個巨大的工具箱，有很多解決方案等待實施。但問題是，它是否也被嚴重忽視了呢？好消息是，越來越少了。你可以問自己，成為氣候活動家的最佳時機是什麼時候？答案不是現在。

Exactly. That was the moment. So if you, again, want to maximize your impact, if you want to ask the morally ambitious question, then the question is, okay, what would the climate activists of the 70s have done today, right? Or what is the problem that's currently where climate change was in the 1970s? You see what I mean? That is an entrepreneurial way of looking at doing good.

沒錯就是那個時刻。所以，如果你想最大限度地發揮你的影響力，如果你想問一個道德上雄心勃勃的問題，那麼問題就是，好吧，70年代的氣候活動家們今天會怎麼做，對嗎？或者說，在上世紀七十年代，氣候變化目前所面臨的問題是什麼？你明白我的意思嗎？這是一種以創業精神看待做好事的方式。

You are really looking for the gap in the market. You could also do that within a cause area, by the way. So if you look at climate change, then you can think, okay, what is the part of the problem that is currently most neglected?

你確實是在尋找市場空白。順便說一句，你也可以在一個事業領域內這樣做。是以，如果你關注氣候變化，那麼你就可以想，好吧，目前最被忽視的問題是什麼？

Okay. So looking at the neglected or sorely overlooked, looking at the solvable and looking at the sizable, I do wonder about the sizable part of that. Does moral ambition always have to be about scale?

好吧，那麼看看被忽視或嚴重忽視的問題，看看可解決的問題，再看看可解決的問題，我確實想知道其中可解決的部分。道德抱負是否總是與規模有關？

Yeah, I think so. Yeah. Yeah. It's about making the biggest possible impact. And if you can achieve your goals during your lifetime, then you're probably not thinking big enough. Look,

我想是的是啊 - 是啊是的，就是要儘可能發揮最大的影響力。如果你能在有生之年實現目標 那你可能想得不夠遠大聽著

I'm not saying that everyone has to be morally ambitious or something like that. I'm not like preaching with my finger and saying, oh, if you don't live this kind of life, you're a bad person.

我不是說每個人都要有道德抱負之類的東西。我不是在用手指說教，說 "哦，如果你不這樣生活，你就是個壞人"。

I am saying, if you are ambitious anyway, why not redirect that energy to do a lot of good?

我的意思是說，如果你無論如何都有雄心壯志，為什麼不把這股力量轉用於做很多好事呢？

I think it will make your life much more meaningful. If you're going to have a burnout anyway, you might as well get that burnout while you help a lot of people, right?

我認為這會讓你的生活更有意義。如果你無論如何都會有職業倦怠，那你還不如在幫助很多人的同時獲得職業倦怠，不是嗎？

And the same is true for some people who are very idealistic, but not very ambitious.

同樣，有些人很有理想，但卻沒有什麼雄心壯志。

Like, wouldn't it be nice to actually achieve a lot? I mean, I personally come from the political left. And yeah, there's this weird leftist obsession with being pure and irrelevant, right? Calling out a lot of people, winning the debate in the group chat, but not actually making a difference for the people you say you care so much about.

比如說，如果能真正取得很多成就，那不是很好嗎？我是說，我個人來自政治左派。是啊，左派有一種奇怪的執念，就是要做一個純粹而無關緊要的人，對吧？罵了很多人，在群聊中贏得了辯論，但實際上並沒有為你口中非常關心的人帶來改變。

I think that's what you call in the book, the noble loser, right?

我想這就是你在書中所說的 "高貴的失敗者 "吧？

是啊 - 是啊 - Yeah.Yeah. - Yeah.Yeah. - Yeah.Yeah. - Yeah.

But I guess what I'm wondering is, do you believe that there is sort of a moral imperative to do the most good you possibly can do to have the most impact, the most scale?

但我想問的是，你是否認為在道德上有必要盡最大可能做好事，以產生最大的影響，達到最大的規模？

Well, obviously at some point you've done enough. I talk about Thomas Clarkson, my favorite abolitionist. He was a British writer and activist. And when he was 25, he had this epiphany that slavery was probably the greatest moral atrocity of his time.

顯然，在某些時候你已經做得夠多了。我談談托馬斯-克拉克森，我最喜歡的廢奴主義者。他是英國作家和活動家。當他25歲的時候，他頓悟了奴隸制可能是他那個時代最大的道德暴行。

And he was like, you know what? Maybe I can make a difference. Maybe I can spend my life fighting this horrible institution. And that's basically what he did. The first seven years he traveled across the United Kingdom, 35,000 miles, spreading his abolitionist propaganda everywhere. And then he had a total nervous breakdown. That's a burnout. He couldn't walk the stairs anymore. He couldn't speak. He started sweating profusely whenever he wanted to say something. And I read that in his memoirs. And I was like, Thomas, Thomas, Thomas, remember your breathing exercises. You can take things too far. Now, the reason I say that only at the end of the book, because most of us first deserve a kick in the butt. So yeah, there are some do-gooders out there. I think they take morality a little bit too seriously. As I said,

他想，你知道嗎？也許我能有所作為也許我可以用我的一生 來對抗這個可怕的機構他基本上就是這麼做的頭七年，他走遍了整個英國 行程35000英里 到處宣傳他的廢奴主張然後他精神徹底崩潰了那是一種倦怠他再也走不動樓梯了他說不出話來他開始大汗淋漓 每當他想說什麼。我在他的回憶錄裡讀到的我當時想 托馬斯 托馬斯 托馬斯 記住你的呼吸練習你會把事情做得太過分的現在，我之所以在書的結尾才這麼說，是因為我們大多數人都應該先被踢一腳。所以，是的，有一些行善者在那裡。我覺得他們把道德看得太重了。正如我所說

I'm personally a pluralist. I'm a father of two young children. I think they're way more important than my career. I am pretty ambitious, right? I do want to make a mark on this world. And I think there are a lot of people out there. We are all, or most of us are scared to death. And what do you want to look back on when you lie on your deathbed? All the PowerPoints you hated to make, or all the reports you wrote that no one ever wanted to read, all the products that you didn't believe in that you still spend a lifetime selling? It seems pretty sad to me. I think this is touching on something really honest, which is that I think a lot of the desire for this sort of big impact may actually come from our fear of our own mortality and this desire to leave a legacy that will outlast us so that we feel like in some sense, it actually mattered that we lived at all.

我個人是一個多元主義者。我是兩個孩子的父親。我認為他們比我的事業更重要。我很有野心，對吧？我確實想在這個世界上有所作為。我覺得外面有很多人。我們都很害怕，或者說大多數人都很害怕。當你躺在病床上時，你想回顧什麼？所有你討厭做的 PowerPoint，或者所有你寫的沒人願意看的報告，所有你不相信但你仍然花了一輩子時間推銷的產品？在我看來，這是很可悲的。我認為這觸及到了一些非常真實的東西，那就是我認為我們對這種巨大影響力的渴望，實際上可能來自於我們對自己死亡的恐懼，以及對留下一份能夠超越我們的遺產的渴望，這樣我

And I remember dealing with this myself. I'm a journalist now, but before that, I was a novelist.

我自己也曾遇到過這種情況。我現在是一名記者，但在那之前，我是一名小說家。

And I didn't care how many people my work impacted, right? It was for me really not about scale. My feeling was, look, if my novel deeply moves just one reader and helps them feel less alone in the world, helps them feel more understood, I will be happy. So I guess my question for you as someone who has personally struggled with this issue of scale is, are you telling me I shouldn't be happy with that? The title of chapter one in your book is literally, no, you're not fine just the way you are. So I think there is absolutely a place for, as the French say, art pour l'art, right? It's just music or art for the sake of art itself. I don't want to let everything succumb to a kind of utilitarian calculus. I think it's better to help a lot of people than just a few people. And as I said, in any rich life, morality does play a big role. I wouldn't want to live in a society where everyone is like Thomas Clarkson, running around on his horseback doing morally ambitious work. But on the margins, I think in the world today, we need a lot of moral ambition. We need much more moral ambition than we currently have.

我不在乎我的工作影響了多少人，對嗎？對我來說，這真的與規模無關。我的感覺是，聽著，只要我的小說深深地打動了一個讀者，讓他們在這個世界上不再感到孤獨，讓他們覺得自己被更多人理解，我就很開心了。所以我想，作為一個曾在規模問題上掙扎過的人，我想問你的問題是，你是在告訴我，我不應該為此感到高興嗎？你書中第一章的標題就是 "不，你這樣並不好"。所以我認為，正如法國人所說的，"為藝術而藝術"（art pour l'art）是絕對存在的，對嗎？這只是為了藝術本身的音樂或藝術。我不想讓一切都屈從於一種功利的算計。我認為幫

Yeah. I mean, I personally would not want to end up in a world where everyone is so focused on moral ambition and scale that no one ever writes a novel because they worry it won't impact enough people. When I was reading your book, I kept thinking of the philosopher Susan

是的，我是說，我個人並不希望世界上每個人都太注重道德抱負和規模，以至於沒有人寫小說，因為他們擔心小說不會影響到足夠多的人。在讀你的書時，我一直在想哲學家蘇珊

Woolf, who has this great essay called Moral Saints. And she says, if the moral saint is devoting all his time to feeding the hungry or healing the sick or raising money for Oxfam, then necessarily he is not reading Victorian novels, playing the oboe, or improving his backhand. A life in which none of these possible aspects of character are developed may seem to be a life strangely barren. Quite an elitist idea of how to spend your life, by the way, reading a novel and improving your backhand. Or maybe just watching Netflix all day. Fair, fair. But you could swap that out with reading your favorite book or any hobby, playing soccer, whatever it might be. But basically what she's saying is, if you try to make all of your actions as morally good as possible, you kind of end up living a life that's bereft of hobbies or relationships or all the other experiences that make life meaningful. Just talk a little more about how you square that with your urge to be morally ambitious. There is some tension there, right?

伍爾夫，她有一篇名為《道德聖人》的好文章。她說，如果道德聖人把所有時間都投入到餵養飢餓者、醫治病人或為牛津饑荒救濟委員會籌款，那麼他必然不會去讀維多利亞時代的小說、吹雙簧管或改進他的反手。在這樣的生活中，性格的這些可能方面都沒有得到發展，這似乎是一種奇怪的貧瘠生活。順便說一句，對於如何度過一生，閱讀小說和提高反手能力是一個相當精英化的想法。或者整天看 Netflix。有道理，有道理。但你可以把它換成讀你喜歡的書或任何愛好，踢足球，不管是什麼。但基本上，她的意思是，如果你試圖讓自己的所有行為都儘可能符合道德

Talk a little bit about that. There is some tension, but I think that tension is mainly felt by philosophers for some reason and not really by me or, I don't know, a lot of normies. It's just, as I said, for me, it's super obvious that life is about many things, including improving your backhand. I'm not saying that people aren't allowed to play tennis anymore, but we spend, what is it, 2,000 work weeks in our career, 10,000 working days, 80,000 hours. That's a lot of time still left at the job. And as I said, 25% of people currently consider their own job socially meaningless. And a lot of our so-called best and brightest are stuck in those jobs.

談談這個問題吧。是有一些緊張，但我覺得這種緊張主要是哲學家感受到的，而不是我或者很多普通人感受到的。就像我說的，對我來說，生活中有很多事情是顯而易見的，包括提高你的反手能力。我不是說人們不能再打網球了，但我們在職業生涯中花了 2000 個工作周，1 萬個工作日，8 萬個小時。這就意味著還有很多時間要留在工作崗位上。正如我所說，目前有 25% 的人認為自己的工作在社會上毫無意義。而我們很多所謂的最優秀、最聰明的人都被困在這些工作崗位上。

So we are living in a world where a huge amount of people have a career that they consider socially meaningless, and then they spend the rest of their time swiping TikTok. That's the reality, right?

是以，我們生活在這樣一個世界裡：大量的人從事著他們認為沒有社會意義的職業，然後把剩下的時間花在刷 TikTok 上。這就是現實，對嗎？

I really don't think that there's a big danger of people reading my book and moving all the way in the other direction. And that's a problem I would honestly like to have.

我真的不認為人們在讀了我的書後會有很大的危險，會一路朝著另一個方向發展。老實說，這也是我希望解決的問題。

So you're saying we're currently very far away from this problem of everyone going full tilt on moral ambition and ignoring everything else in life.

所以，你的意思是說，我們目前離這個問題還很遙遠，即每個人都全力以赴地追求道德抱負，而忽略了生活中的其他一切。

There's only one community I know of where this has become a problem.

據我所知，只有一個社區存在這個問題。

It's the effective altruism community. In a way, moral ambition could be seen as effective altruism for normies.

這是有效利他主義的群體。在某種程度上，道德抱負可以被視為正常人的有效利他主義。

Okay. I definitely want to get to that, but I'm going to put a pin in that for a moment because I just want to take the flip side of what you were just saying. You're saying like, okay, I'm not really concerned, Sigal, that we're edging into this world where everyone is so focused on moral ambition. But how do you then actually know when it's enough? I think you used the phrase earlier like, at some point it's enough. And I think you write in the epilogue of the book, morality plays a big role in a rich and full life, but it's not everything. And if your inner fire burns bright, no need to stoke it hotter. But to me, that is pretty fuzzy sounding.

好吧，我當然想說這個，但我想先放個針，因為我想從你剛才說的反面說起。你說，好吧，我並不擔心，西格爾，我們正在步入一個人人都如此注重道德野心的世界。但你怎麼知道什麼時候才夠呢？我想你之前用過這樣一句話，"在某些時候，這就夠了"。我想你在書的後記中寫道，道德在豐富充實的生活中扮演著重要角色，但它並不是一切。如果你的內心之火熊熊燃燒，就沒有必要把它燒得更旺。但對我來說，這聽起來很模糊。

How can I know what's enough and avoid pushing so far that moral ambition does take over my life?

我怎樣才能知道什麼是 "足夠"，並避免 "逼得太緊"，以至於道德野心佔據了我的生活？

That does happen to some people. So how can I concretely know like, Sigal, you've done enough.

這確實發生在某些人身上。所以我怎麼能具體知道，西格爾，你已經做得夠多了。

Chill. Well, it depends on how far you want to push yourself. Look, there are no easy answers here.

寒冷。這取決於你想把自己逼到什麼程度。聽著，這裡沒有簡單的答案。

I think that at some point when you really start to suffer from your moral ambition, that's not where I would want you to end up. I think you should be fueled for 80% by enthusiasm and for maybe 20% by feelings of guilt and shame. So a little bit of guilt and shame in the mix, that's fine. It's actually how this journey started for me. I published this previous book,

我認為，在某個時刻，當你真正開始為自己的道德抱負而痛苦時，我不希望你落得如此下場。我認為你應該有 80% 的熱情和 20% 的內疚和羞愧。所以，有一點內疚和羞愧感也沒關係。事實上，我就是這樣開始這段旅程的。我出版了上一本書、

Humankind, made quite a lot of money on it, honestly, which I never would have expected.

老實說，《人類》賺了不少錢，這是我始料未及的。

I always thought that I would be a broke history teacher or something like that.

我一直以為自己會成為一名破產的歷史老師或類似的職業。

And yeah, that gave me a feeling of responsibility like, huh, what does this mean? I actually need to do something with it. And I also felt a little bit ashamed for spending a decade in what I'd like to describe as the awareness industry. I'd been saying a lot about all the things that need to happen in the world. A lot of people will know me for shouting Texas, Texas, Texas at Davos, right?

是的，這給了我一種責任感，就像，嗯，這意味著什麼？我真的需要做點什麼。同時，我也覺得有點慚愧，因為我花了十年時間在我想描述為 "意識 "的行業裡。我說了很多世界上需要發生的事情。很多人都知道我在達沃斯會議上大喊 "德克薩斯、德克薩斯、德克薩斯"，對吧？

And I was a bit fed up with myself, honestly, for standing on the sidelines.

老實說，我對自己的袖手旁觀感到有些厭煩。

To me, what this is indicating is like, there's some element of subjectivity here, right? Like the question of what percentage of my life should be focused on moral ambition and what should be like playing the oboe or like you're deciding who to compare yourself to and how much you want to push yourself, how much you're okay with having some suffering in your life to achieve a greater goal, how much you're like, I push back a little bit. I think the question itself sort of presumes that doing a lot of good or making a lot of impact is not going to be a nice experience or something like that, that pushing harder will always involve more sacrifices.

對我來說，這說明了什麼？ 這裡面有一些主觀因素，對嗎？比如，我的生活中有多大比例應該專注於道德抱負，有多大比例應該像吹雙簧管一樣，或者你在決定與誰比較，你想在多大程度上鞭策自己，你在多大程度上可以接受生活中的一些苦難以實現更大的目標，你在多大程度上喜歡，我退後一點。我覺得這個問題本身就有一種假設，即做很多好事或產生很大的影響並不會是一種美好的經歷或類似的事情，更努力地去做總會有更多的犧牲。

But if you talk to a lot of entrepreneurs, they find a lot of joy in thinking big.

但是，如果你和許多創業者交談，他們會發現 "想得遠 "是一件非常快樂的事情。

They find a lot of joy in climbing the ladder. It's what I always experienced in my career.

他們在攀登階梯的過程中找到了很多樂趣。這也是我在職業生涯中一直體驗到的。

I love becoming a member of a student society in Utrecht in the Netherlands where I grew up because I felt so dumb compared to all these older students. And I was like, this is awesome.

在我長大的荷蘭烏得勒支，我喜歡成為一個學生社團的成員，因為和這些高年級學生相比，我覺得自己太笨了。我當時想，這太棒了。

I want to learn about philosophy and anthropology and history. And again, when I started my career as a journalist at the Volkskrant, which is sort of the Guardian or well, I guess the New York

我想學習哲學、人類學和歷史。同樣，當我在《大眾報》（類似於《衛報》或《紐約時報》）開始我的記者生涯時，我也是這樣做的。

Times at the Netherlands, I just love being the youngest journalist there and learning from my older colleagues. And when I started as a writer, I had these big dreams about, I want to write a book that will speak to millions of people about the big questions of history, like why have we conquered the globe? What makes humans special? And then as I did that, I was in my early 30s,

在荷蘭的時候，我喜歡作為那裡最年輕的記者，向年長的同事學習。剛開始當作家時，我有一個很大的夢想：我想寫一本書，向千百萬人講述歷史上的重大問題，比如我們為什麼征服了全球？是什麼讓人類與眾不同？當我這樣做的時候，我才30出頭、

I was, yeah, a bit bored and looking for the next ladder to climb. So for me, climbing a new ladder has mostly been about excitement and enthusiasm. Let's talk about the effective altruism piece of this. Some of our listeners may have heard of it, but for those who haven't, it's a movement that's all about using reason and evidence and data to do as much good as possible.

是的，我有點無聊，正在尋找下一個攀登的階梯。是以，對我來說，攀登新的階梯主要是為了興奮和熱情。讓我們來談談有效利他主義這一塊。有些聽眾可能聽說過，但對於那些沒聽說過的人來說，這是一場關於利用理性、證據和數據儘可能多地做好事的運動。

I will say I'm not an effective altruist, but I am a journalist who has reported a lot on EA because I work for Vox's Future Perfect section, which was sort of loosely inspired by EA in its early days. So I'm curious where you stand on this. You talk about effective altruism in the book, and you do echo a lot of its core ideas, like this idea that you shouldn't just be trying to do good. You should try to do the most good possible. So is being morally ambitious different from being an effective altruist? Yeah, so I wouldn't say the most good.

我得說我不是一個有效的利他主義者，但我是一個記者，我報道過很多關於 EA 的事情，因為我在 Vox 的 "完美未來 "欄目工作，該欄目早期的靈感就來自於 EA。所以我很好奇你在這方面的立場。你在書中談到了有效利他主義，而且你確實贊同書中的很多核心觀點，比如你不應該只想著做好事。你應該儘可能地做好事。那麼，道德上的野心與有效的利他主義是否有所不同？是的，所以我不會說是最大的善。

I was like, you should do a lot of good, which is different, right? That's not about being perfect, but just about being ambitious. So in the book, I study a lot of movements that I admire. As you know, I write extensively about the abolitionists, about the Sovrushets, about the civil rights campaigners, about extraordinary people like Rosa Parks, who was such a strategic visionary. A lot of people remember her as this quiet seamstress, but she was actually a highly experienced activist.

我當時想，你應該做很多好事，這不一樣，對吧？這不是說要完美，而是要有雄心壯志。所以在這本書裡，我研究了很多我欽佩的運動。如你所知，我寫了大量關於廢奴主義者、蘇聯人、民權運動者以及羅莎-帕克斯（Rosa Parks）等非凡人物的文章。在很多人的印象中，她是一位安靜的裁縫，但實際上她是一位經驗豐富的活動家。

And they really planned this whole Montgomery bus boycott. It didn't just happen. I talk about the animal rights movement. I talk about Ralph Nader and the extraordinary Nader's Raider movement in the 60s and the 70s, when Ralph Nader was able to recruit a lot of really talented young

他們真的策劃了整個蒙哥馬利巴士抵制行動這不是偶然發生的我談到了動物權利運動。我談到了拉爾夫-納德和60、70年代非凡的納德攻略運動，當時拉爾夫-納德能夠招募到很多真正有才華的年輕人。

Ivy League graduates and convince them to not work for boring law firms, but instead go to

常春藤聯盟的畢業生，說服他們不要在無聊的律師事務所工作，而是去

Washington and influence legislation. There's one historian who estimates that they've influenced, what is it, 25 pieces of federal legislation. So anyway, the book is a whole collection of studies of movements that I admire. And indeed, effective altruism is also one of those movements that I admire quite a bit. I think there's a lot we can learn from them.

華盛頓，影響立法。據一位歷史學家估計，他們影響了25項聯邦立法。總之，這本書收集了我所欣賞的各種運動的研究。事實上，有效利他主義也是我非常欣賞的運動之一。我認為我們可以從他們身上學到很多東西。

And there are also quite a few things that I don't really like about them.

So the main thing I think, indeed, what I really like about them is their moral seriousness. As I said, I come from the political left. And if there's one thing that's often quite annoying about lefties is that they preach a lot, but they do little. For example, this simple thing about donating to charity, I think it's pretty easy to make the case that that is one of the most effective things you can do. But then very few of my progressive leftist friends donate anything. So I really like that moral seriousness of EAs. You go to conferences, and you will meet quite a few people who have donated kidneys to random strangers, which is pretty impressive. I'm sorry to say that I still have both of my kidneys.

是以，我認為，事實上，我真正喜歡他們的主要原因是他們在道德上的嚴肅性。我說過，我來自政治左派。如果說左派有什麼令人討厭的地方，那就是他們說得多，做得少。例如，關於向慈善機構捐款這件簡單的事，我認為很容易就能證明這是你能做的最有效的事情之一。但我的進步左派朋友們卻很少捐款。是以，我非常喜歡教育協會的道德嚴肅性。你去參加會議，會遇到很多人向陌生人捐贈腎臟，這讓人印象深刻。很遺憾，我的兩個腎都還在。

To them. But yeah, I admire the people who really practice what they preach.

敬他們不過，我還是很佩服那些言行一致的人。

I guess the main thing I dislike is probably what we already talked about, like where does the motivation come from? One of the founding fathers of effective altruism was the philosopher Peter Singer, obviously, also one of the founding fathers of the modern animal rights movement. And everyone knows him for that thought experiment of the child drowning in the shallow pond. I'm pretty sure that he must be really fed up with talking about that thought experiment, because I am already fed up talking about it, and it's not even my thought experiment.

我想我最不喜歡的可能就是我們已經談過的，比如動機從何而來？有效利他主義的奠基人之一是哲學家彼得-辛格，很顯然，他也是現代動物權利運動的奠基人之一。每個人都知道他做的那個思想實驗：孩子在淺池塘裡溺水。我敢肯定，他一定已經厭倦了談論這個思想實驗，因為我已經厭倦了談論它，而這甚至不是我的思想實驗。

Right. So that's the thought experiment where Peter Singer says, look, if you are walking to work and you see a little kid drowning in a shallow pond, you know you could save this kid. Your life will be in no danger. It's shallow, but you will ruin your expensive suit or you will muddy your shoes should you do it. And it's supposed to be like, yes, obviously you should do it. And well, by analogy, we have money. It could easily save the lives of people in developing countries. So you should donate it.

好吧這就是彼得-辛格說的思想實驗 如果你走在上班的路上 看到一個小孩在淺池塘裡溺水 你知道你可以救這個小孩你的生命不會有任何危險。雖然池塘很淺，但如果你去救人，就會弄髒你昂貴的西裝，或者弄髒你的鞋子。你會覺得，是的，顯然你應該這麼做。好吧，打個比方，我們有錢。它可以很容易地拯救開發中國家人民的生命。所以你應該捐出來

Yeah. Thank you so much for helping me out with that one. Anyway, I never really liked the thought experiment because it always felt like a form of moral blackmail to me.

是啊非常感謝你幫我解決了這個問題。總之，我從來都不喜歡思想實驗 因為我總覺得那是一種道德訛詐

And now I'm suddenly supposed to see drowning children everywhere and like, oh, this microphone, it was too expensive. Could have donated that to, I don't know, charity in Malawi or, you know, I just had a sandwich and, you know, the peanut butter on it was also too expensive. It's like a totally inhuman way of, I don't know, looking at life. It just doesn't resonate with me at all. But there are quite a few of people who, um, yeah, um, instantly thought, yes, that that is true. And they discovered, hey, wait a minute, I'm not alone. Uh, let's build a movement together. Um, and I really like that. Um, for me, the historical comparison, um, is, is, uh, the Quakers, um, the early abolitionists who were very weird as well. It was like this small Protestant sect of people who deeply believed in equality. They were some of the first who allowed women to also preach in their meeting houses. They, um, would never bow to anyone, even if it was the, uh, if it was the king of England, they would never, um, take an oath because they were like, yeah, we, we always speak the truth. So why would we take an oath? Anyway, they were seen as very weird. Um, and, um, quite amazing as well. Right. The abolitionism sort of started as a, as a Quaker startup. So that's also how I see EA as very weird, but pretty impressive. And, and, and, um, I think a lot of people in there have done a lot of good work, even though I'd never, you know, joined the church.

現在我突然看到到處都是溺水的孩子，就像，哦，這個麥克風，太貴了。我本可以把它捐給馬拉威的慈善機構 或者我剛吃了個三明治 上面的花生醬也太貴了這就像是一種完全不人道的，我不知道，看待生活的方式。我對此完全沒有共鳴。但也有不少人，嗯，是的，嗯，立刻就想，是的，這是真的。他們發現，嘿，等等，我並不孤單。呃，讓我們一起發起一場運動吧。嗯，我很喜歡這一點。嗯，對我來說，歷史比較，嗯，是，嗯，貴格會，嗯，早期的廢奴主義者，他們也非常奇怪。他們是新教的一個小教派，堅信平等。他們是最早允許婦女在聚會場所佈道的人之一。他們

It's not for me. And there, yeah, there are some, some obvious downsides to, to the ideology as well. Let's pick up on that weirdness bit, right? So in your book, you, you straight up tell readers join a cult or start your own. Regardless, you can't be afraid to come across as weird. If you want to make a difference. Every milestone of civilization was first seen as the crazy idea of some subculture. I'm curious how you think about the downsides of being in a cult. Yeah.

這不適合我。對，意識形態也有一些明顯的缺點讓我們來談談那個奇怪的地方，對嗎？所以在你的書裡，你直接告訴讀者 加入一個邪教或開始你自己的。無論如何，你都不能害怕表現得怪異。如果你想有所作為人類文明的每一個里程碑，最初都是一些亞文化的瘋狂想法。我很好奇你是如何看待邪教的弊端的？是啊

Cults don't have a great reputation. No. Um, so I got to give some credit to Peter Thiel here. Um, maybe not, um, someone that people naturally associated with me, um, uh, is a venture capitalist very much on the right wing side of the political spectrum. Um, he's written this fantastic book, uh, called zero to one about how to build a successful startup. And, um, indeed, one of his advices is to start a cult. Um, a cult is a group, a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens who want to change the world. Um, and they have, uh, some shared beliefs that make them very weird, uh, for the rest of society. Now, as I said, I spent the first decade of my career as a journalist and, um, most journalists think that they should break out of their bubble, uh, that they should, you know, meet people on the other side of the political spectrum.

邪教的名聲並不好不，我得給彼得-蒂爾點贊嗯，也許不是，嗯， 一個人，人們自然而然地與我聯繫起來， 嗯，嗯，是一個風險資本家 非常右翼的政治光譜的一面。他寫了一本很棒的書，叫《從0到1》，講的是如何建立一家成功的創業公司。事實上，他的建議之一就是建立一個邪教組織。邪教是一個團體，一小群有思想、有決心的公民，他們想改變世界。嗯，他們有一些共同的信仰，這讓他們對社會其他人來說非常奇怪。正如我所說，我職業生涯的前十年是做記者的，大多數記者認為他們應該走出自己的圈子，呃，他們應該，你知道，去認識政治光譜另一側的人。

This is the debate that I used to have with my colleagues. They would say, yeah, we got to make sure that the plumbers read our essays as well. And my response was always like,

這是我以前和同事們經常爭論的問題。他們會說，是啊，我們得確保水管工也能讀到我們的文章。而我的回答總是：

I, you know, I would love for plumbers to read my essays, but currently my friends aren't reading them. So maybe, maybe we can start there. Right. Um, and this is, um, um, why I think it sometimes makes sense to actually double down on a cult because, um, in a cult you can be radicalized and sometimes that's exactly what's necessary. Um, to give you one simple example, you know, in a world that doesn't really seem to care about animals all that much, it's easy to become disillusioned. But then when, once you don't join a safe space of ambitious do-gooders, you can suddenly get this feeling like, Hey, I'm not the only one, right? There are other people who deeply care about animals as well. And you know what? Uh, I can do much more than I'm currently doing. So it can have a radicalizing effect. Now I totally acknowledge that there are all signs of dangers here. Um, like, uh, you can become too dogmatic. You can be, you know, quite hostile to people who don't share all your beliefs. So I do see all of that. I just want to recognize that if you look at some of these great movements of history, the abolitionists, the suffragettes, yeah, they have cultish aspects. They were, they were in a way.

我，你知道，我很希望水管工能讀我的文章，但目前我的朋友們並沒有讀我的文章。所以，也許，也許我們可以從這裡開始。好吧嗯，這就是，嗯，嗯，為什麼我認為它有時是有意義的，實際上加倍下來的邪教，因為，嗯，在一個邪教你可以激進化，有時這正是什麼是必要的。舉個簡單的例子，在一個似乎並不太關心動物的世界裡，你很容易變得幻滅。但是，一旦你沒有加入一個由雄心勃勃的行善者組成的安全空間，你就會突然有這樣的感覺：嘿，我不是唯一的一個，對嗎？還有其他人也非常關心動物。你知道嗎？我可以比現在做得更多是以，這可能會產生激進的影響。現

Yeah. A little bit like a cult. I want to push a little bit on this question about, you know, cults and dogmatism, but obviously a big downside, as you mentioned, is that you can become dogmatic. You can become kind of deft to criticism from the outside. Do you have any advice for people on how to avoid the downside? Yeah. Don't let it suck up your whole life.

有點像邪教有點像邪教。我想就這個關於邪教和教條主義的問題說幾句，但顯然，正如你提到的，邪教的一大弊端就是你會變得教條主義。你可能會變得對來自外界的責備不屑一顧。對於如何避免這種弊端，你有什麼建議嗎？有啊不要讓它佔據你的整個生活。

There's this quote from Flaubert, the novelist who once said something like, if you want to be violent and original in your work, you need to be boring in your private life.

小說家福樓拜曾說過這樣一句話：如果你想在作品中表現出暴力和獨創性，你就必須在私生活中表現得乏味。

I'm paraphrasing here. But I've always liked that quote. I don't know. It gives you a certain groundedness and stability. So maybe surround yourself with other types of people and other types of pursuits, right? Basically be a pluralist. I don't know. I don't know. Honestly,

我在這裡是轉述。但我一直很喜歡這句話。我也不知道它給了你某種踏實和穩定。所以，也許你身邊會有其他類型的人和其他類型的追求，對嗎？基本上是一個多元化的人。我不知道 我不知道 I don't know.我也不知道老實說

I don't have like the perfect recipe here. In general, it's super important to surround yourself with people who are critical of your work, you know, who don't take you too seriously, who can also laugh at you, you know, who have a good sense of humor or, you know, who can just see your foolishness and call it out and still be a good friend. But this is like general life advice for everyone. Right, right. Having a strong dose of pluralism can help counteract a lot of the potential pitfalls with these sorts of ideological movements.

我沒有完美的祕訣。總的來說，在你周圍有一些對你的工作持責備態度的人是非常重要的，你知道，他們不會把你太當回事，他們也會嘲笑你，你知道，他們有很好的幽默感，或者，你知道，他們可以看到你的愚蠢，並把它叫出來，但仍然是一個好朋友。但這是給每個人的生活建議沒錯，沒錯。有一個強大的劑量 多元主義 可以幫助抵消了很多 潛在的陷阱 這些排序 意識形態運動。

Yeah, absolutely. At the same time, you know, I come from such a different place, you know.

是的，當然。同時，你知道，我來自一個與眾不同的地方。

I was mainly frustrated with all these people on the left side of the political spectrum saying, oh, we need systemic change. We need to abolish capitalism, overthrow the patriarchy, and write, you know, a hundred more monographs about it in utterly inaccessible academic jargon. And I was like, come on, can we actually do something, right? Can we actually find some effective way of actually making a difference? Well, I think one important question is the question of who should we be trying to make a difference for? There is a very interesting concept that you mention in the book, which is humanity's expanding moral circle. What is that?

我主要是對政治光譜左側的這些人感到沮喪，他們說，哦，我們需要系統性的變革。我們需要廢除資本主義，推翻父權制，用完全難以理解的學術術語再寫上幾百篇專著。我當時想，拜託，我們真的能做點什麼嗎？我們真的能找到一些有效的方法來改變現狀嗎？我認為，一個重要的問題是，我們應該為誰做出改變？你在書中提到了一個非常有趣的概念，那就是人類不斷擴大的道德圈。這是什麼概念？

It's, again, a term from Peter Singer, the philosopher, who makes the simple case that throughout history, our moral circle has expanded. So back in the old days, we mainly cared about our own tribe and members of our tribe. And then, you know, we got the big religions and we started caring about people who believe the same things. And then we got the nation states and so on and so on. And he basically says that moral progress is all about expanding the moral circle and to keep pushing that expansion. A couple of years ago, I was actually working on a different book. I wanted to write the history of moral circle expansion. That's what I wanted to do, because it's really interesting that a lot of the first abolitionists, they already cared deeply about animal rights, which makes a lot of sense. Because once you start expanding your moral circle, once you start opening your heart to people who first weren't included in your moral circle, then the question is like, why stop at some point? And I was writing about that, learning about that. And I was like, huh, maybe I should finish this book when I'm 60 or 70 or something. Maybe I should be doing this stuff, you know, not just be writing about it. So that for me, that was incredibly inspirational. That's funny. Okay, if the moral circle is like, okay, who's worthy of our moral consideration? Who's not? Who's in? Who's out? You kind of acknowledge in the book, like, maybe it's not obvious how to tell, are we including everyone in the moral circle that should be included? And you have a few pointers that you offer people on how to check that they're including everyone that should be included. Do you want to give us like a little summary, a few pointers? I think that there are some classic signs that can tell us whether we're on the right side of history. This is one of those fascinating questions that we can ask, right? We can look back on, say, the Romans who threw naked women before the lions, but still thought they were super civilized because unlike the barbarians, they didn't sacrifice kids to the gods, right?

這也是哲學家彼得-辛格（Peter Singer）的一個術語，他提出了一個簡單的理由，即縱觀歷史，我們的道德圈已經擴大。所以在過去，我們主要關心自己的部落和部落成員。然後，你知道，我們有了大宗教，我們開始關心信仰相同東西的人。然後我們有了民族國家，等等等等。他基本上是說，道德進步就是要擴大道德圈，並不斷推動這種擴大。幾年前，我正在寫一本不同的書。我想寫道德圈擴張的歷史。這就是我想做的事，因為很有趣的是，很多最早的廢奴主義者，他們已經非常關心動物權利，這很有意義。因為一旦你開始擴大你的道德圈，一旦你開始向那

And every civilization throughout history has always thought we are the most civilized. And obviously we think that today as well, like any modern day liberal in the US or the West in the 21st century will be like, yeah, there's still bad stuff happening, but basically like we've figured things out. And the uncomfortable truth is that probably we are still committed, engaged in some really terrible moral atrocities. I mean, that's highly likely if you just look at the historical track record. So the question is, what will the historians of the future say about us? And then

歷史上的每一種文明都認為我們是最文明的。很顯然，我們今天也是這麼認為的，就像21世紀美國或西方的任何現代自由主義者都會說，是的，仍然有不好的事情發生，但基本上就像我們已經想通了一樣。而令人不安的事實是，我們很可能仍在從事一些非常可怕的道德暴行。我的意思是，如果你看看歷史記錄，這是很有可能的。那麼問題來了，未來的歷史學家會怎麼評價我們呢？然後

I'm not just talking about, oh yeah, the bad Maga people or something like that. No, no, no. I'm talking to you directly who's listening to this podcast right now and probably thinks of his or himself as a pretty decent person. Then the question is, okay, what is that? A couple of signs. Well, one is we've been talking about it for a long time. So the alarm bells have been ringing for a long time. That's one clear sign. In the book, I give the example of the way we treat animals. And it's not as if these arguments are new or anything. A lot of smart people have said this for a long time. Jeremy Bentham already in the late 18th century wrote that it's not about whether these animals can speak or reason or do mathematics. No, it's about the simple question, can they suffer? And we've got an enormous mountain of evidence that tells us, yeah, they can probably suffer really badly. So yeah, if you eat meat and dairy today, then it's quite likely that you're involved in one of those moral atrocities. I've got a few other signs that I talk about. For example, we rationalize these kinds of things by saying that they're natural or normal or necessary. This is what Melanie Joy, the psychologist, calls the three Ns. And you look at something like slavery, and that's also what we did back then, right? We said it was natural.

我說的不只是 "哦，對了，壞馬加人 "之類的。不，不，不。我說的是正在收聽播客的你，你可能認為自己是個正直的人。那麼問題來了，好吧，那是什麼？有幾個跡象。一是我們已經討論了很久。所以警鐘已經敲了很久了。這是一個明顯的跡象。在書中，我舉例說明了我們對待動物的方式。這些論點並不新鮮。很多聰明人早就這麼說了。傑里米-邊沁（Jeremy Bentham）早在18世紀末就寫道："這與動物是否會說話、推理或數學無關。而是一個簡單的問題：它們會受苦嗎？我們有大量的證據告訴我們 是的，它們可能會非常痛苦所以是的，如果你今

Like throughout history, every civilization has always practiced the institution of slavery.

縱觀歷史，每個文明都曾實行過奴隸制。

Like it's just what people do, right? What are you going to do about it? Or necessary, people would say. Yeah, it was just essential for the economy. If we would abolish slavery today, the economy will collapse, and there will be all kinds of perverse consequences.

就像人們做的那樣，對嗎？你又能做些什麼呢？人們會說這是必要的是啊，這對經濟來說是必不可少的。如果我們今天廢除奴隸制 經濟就會崩潰 會產生各種不良後果

So anyway, it's interesting to look at those signs and then think, okay, what are some of the worst things that may be happening today? There's sort of a pet peeve I have about the way people sometimes talk about the expanding moral circle. People, I find, typically talk about it as if moral progress or the expansion of the moral circle is some sort of linear process.

是以，無論如何，看看這些跡象，然後想一想，好吧，今天可能發生的最糟糕的事情是什麼？對於人們有時談論道德圈擴大的方式，我有一種小小的不滿。我發現，人們在談論時通常會把道德進步或道德圈的擴大說成是某種線性過程。

Mm-hmm. I think that's a really good point you're making. So historians call this the Whig view of history, named after the Whigs, the political party in the UK a few centuries ago, which indeed had this Western triumphalism baked into it. Like we know what's right for the world, and we will show the rest of the world how to be good, how to be moral.

嗯我覺得你說得很有道理。歷史學家稱之為輝格黨人的歷史觀，以輝格黨命名，幾個世紀前英國的政黨，確實有西方勝利主義的影子。就像我們知道什麼對世界是正確的 我們會告訴世界其他國家如何做個好人 如何做個有道德的人