Name: 亞馬遜比亞馬遜更值錢嗎？| BBC 創意 (Is the Amazon worth more than Amazon? | BBC Ideas)
Uploaded: 2025-10-13T07:58:51.000Z
Duration: 6 min 28 s

我們活在一個資本主義的世界。

Therefore, we need to put a price on nature, because that is when, unfortunately, people start to value it.

所以，我們需要為大自然訂價，因為不幸的是，這時候人們才會開始重視它。

Species a is worth 50 bucks and species B is worth $10,000.

物種 A 價值 50 美元，物種 B 價值 10,000 美元。

Biodiversity is declining in such a rapid rate, around 25% of plant and animal species are close to extinction.

生物多樣性正在以驚人的速度下降，大約有 25% 的動植物物種瀕臨滅絕。

The root causes of the loss of wild nature are complex.

野生大自然喪失的根本原因很複雜。

But what is driving the biggest changes today is capitalism.

但今天造成最大改變的驅動因素是資本主義。

One solution to this problem is to value nature, to put a price on it.

這個問題的一個解決方案是重視大自然，為它訂價。

Because unfortunately, in the world we live in, once something has a value to it, people are less likely to destroy it.

因為不幸的是，在我們生活的這個世界裡，一旦某樣東西有了價值，人們就不太可能去破壞它。

Can these very tools that drive the decline of nature be the tools that help us reverse the process?

這些驅動大自然衰退的工具，也能幫助我們扭轉這個過程嗎？

It feeds us, it clothes us, it cleans our air, it provides us with fresh water.

它餵養我們、為我們提供衣物、淨化我們的空氣、提供我們乾淨的飲水。

It is really important for our physical and mental well being.

這對我們的身心健康都非常重要。

I think it's useful to think about an ecosystem and whether an ecosystem destroyed or harvested is worth more or less than an ecosystem intact.

我認為思考一個生態系統，以及一個被破壞或採伐的生態系統，跟一個完整的生態系統相比，哪個更有價值，這很有幫助。

In many cases there is more value in that ecosystem and the challenge is to recognize that value.

在許多情況下，那個生態系統更有價值，而挑戰就在於如何辨識出那個價值。

One of the really big issues, I think, with valuing nature is how do you do it.

我認為，關於如何評估大自然的價值，其中一個非常大的問題是，你該怎麼做。

When you cut down a tree and you sell it as timber, you're able to realize the market value of that timber.

當你砍下一棵樹並將它作為木材出售時，你就能實現那木材的市場價值。

Whereas if that tree still remains in a forest, it's playing a lot of functional roles for surrounding communities and even the global community.

然而，如果那棵樹還留在森林裡，它卻為周遭的社群，甚至是全球社群，扮演著許多功能性作用。

One really interesting question is how much is the Amazon rainforest worth?

一個很有趣的問題是，亞馬遜雨林值多少錢？

它跟亞馬遜（公司）比起來怎麼樣？

The company the question has an obvious answer.

這個問題的公司，答案很明顯。

The Amazon rainforest is the center of biodiversity on planet Earth.

亞馬遜雨林是地球上生物多樣性的中心。

There's no way that is worth less than a company.

怎麼想都不可能比一家公司價值低。

So if we started, for example, by looking at the carbon value in terms of climate change mitigation, the rainfall that's being generated by that rainforest existing, the biodiversity that provides lots of interactions around pollination and controlling pests, that may one day provide medical benefits for people.

所以，如果我們開始，舉例來說，從氣候變遷減緩的角度來看碳價值，雨林產生的降雨，以及生物多樣性提供的授粉和病蟲害防治等眾多互動，這些有一天可能為人們提供醫療益處。

And on top of that, that rainforest is ancient.

And that has intrinsic respect and value that we also need to consider in the equation.

這本身就帶有我們也需要在等式中考慮的內在尊重和價值。

Viewing nature as an asset rather than a commodity is absolutely essential, because an asset you always want to build on, you want to enhance and you want to protect.

將大自然視為資產而非商品，這絕對是必要的，因為資產是我們總是想去建立、去增強、去保護的。

One of the big arguments is that it doesn't recognize the intrinsic relationships that people have with nature.

其中一個主要的論點是，它沒有承認人們與大自然之間固有的關係。

We get senses of identity, sense of place, cultural relationships and rituals.

我們從中獲得了身份認同感、歸屬感，以及文化上的連結和儀式。

And none of those can be properly represented with monetary valuation.

而這些都無法透過金錢的估價來妥善呈現。

We cannot depend upon pricing of nature as the solution to problems because we cannot price the priceless.

我們不能依賴對大自然的定價來解決問題，因為我們無法為無價之物定價。

I mean, the danger with putting a price on nature is that you create incentives for people to cheapen nature because they want to make money off of it.

我的意思是，為大自然定價的危險在於，你會創造誘因，讓人們為了從中獲利而賤價出售大自然。

Communities that live close to nature and are dependent on nature directly are often the poorest.

那些與大自然緊密生活並直接依賴大自然為生的社群，通常是最貧窮的。

As a consequence, given their low incomes, the economic value of what they get from nature, the positive benefits that they get, turns out to be very low.

是以，考量到他們較低的收入，他們從大自然中獲得的經濟價值，也就是他們得到的正面效益，實際上非常低。

We do not want to price out those who have very low incomes living close to nature, but

我們不希望排除那些生活在大自然附近、收入非常低的人們，但

in poverty and therefore eliminating their voices from the decision making system.

卻讓他們因貧困而無法在決策系統中發聲。

In the state of California, if you're a developer, you want to build a bunch of houses, you know that your new housing complex is going to kill off breeding pairs of burrowing owls.

在加州，如果你是個開發商，想蓋一堆房子，你知道你的新住宅區會害死繁殖中的穴鴞。

You need to account for those burrowing owls someplace else.

你得想辦法在別的地方安置這些穴鴞。

And so you have to then say, I'm willing to pay $2,000 for a burrowing owl.

所以你得說，我願意花兩千塊買一隻穴鴞。

Who out there can conserve a burrowing owl for $2,000 for me?

有誰能幫我以兩千塊的價格保育一隻穴鴞呢？

One of the pioneering examples of bringing nature into decision making was the country of Costa Rica, which has gone from predominantly deforestation to to reforestation.

將大自然納入決策考量的開創性例子之一是哥斯大黎加，這個國家已經從以森林砍伐為主轉變為以森林復育為主。

So Costa Rica now by most metrics, has the highest human development index, is the most prosperous and developed of the countries of its neighborhood.

所以哥斯大黎加現在大多數指標都顯示，它擁有最高的人類發展指數，是鄰近國家中最繁榮發達的。

GDP is neither a necessary nor a sufficient indicator of human well being, let alone the well being of nature that could sustain human well being over time.

國內生產毛額（GDP）既不是人類福祉的必要也不是充分指標，更不用說能長期維持人類福祉的自然福祉了。

Rethinking the fundamental structure of what a good economy, a good nation, a good life is, is a fundamental part of what we need to do.

我們需要做的根本部分，就是重新思考一個好的經濟、一個好的國家、一個好的生活的基礎結構。

There's not one silver bullet here, but I think this approach of valuing nature is an important one.

這裡沒有萬靈丹，但我認為這種重視大自然的方法很重要。

In some ways it is like that discussion between idealists and pragmatists.

在某些方面，這就像是理想主義者和務實主義者之間的討論。

Some people feel we should not be putting a price on nature, and

有些人覺得我們不應該為大自然定價，

而且從道德上來說，這麼做是不對的。

All of us have that idealist part in us, but we also have to be entirely pragmatic.

我們內心都有理想主義的一面，但我們也必須完全務實。

We need a blueprint for nature that says these parts of the globe are the most important for nature and we absolutely must protect them.

我們需要一份大自然的藍圖，說明地球上哪些地方對大自然最重要，我們絕對必須保護牠們。

Putting a price on nature is one way to value it, is not the only way to value nature.

為大自然定價是重視牠的一種方式，但不是唯一的方式。

And so if we just recognize that monetary valuation is but one of a suite of ways, that would go a long way.

所以，如果我們認識到金錢估值只是眾多方式中的一種，那就很有幫助了。

If you enjoyed that, be sure to check out these videos next.

如果你喜歡這個影片，別忘了看看接下來這些影片。

And if you haven't already, hit the subscribe button and click the bell to get a notification.

還沒訂閱的朋友，記得按下訂閱按鈕，還有小鈴鐺。

這樣我們每次上傳新影片，你都會收到通知喔。

字幕列表影片播放

亞馬遜比亞馬遜更值錢嗎？| BBC 創意 (Is the Amazon worth more than Amazon? | BBC Ideas)

absolutely

obvious

recognize

eliminate