Placeholder Image

字幕列表 影片播放

已審核 字幕已審核
  • Do you have one of these?

    你有這個東西嗎?

  • I got a little obsessed with mine.

    我自己也是愛用者。

  • In fact I got a little obsessed with all my stuff.

    事實上,我是不折不扣的戀物狂。

  • Have you ever wondered where all the stuff we buy, comes from

    你有沒有想過, 我們買的東西是從那裡來?

  • and where it goes when we throw it out?

    在我們把它丟掉後, 又葬身何處?

  • I couldn't stop wondering about that. So I looked it up.

    我不得不認真的思考這個問題。 因此,我就去找答案。

  • And what the text book said, is that stuff moves through a system

    根據教科書的說法, 東西的一生可分成下列幾個階段,

  • from extraction to production to distribution to consumption to disposal.

    從原料開採--到產品製造— 到分配行銷--到消費使用— 到最後的廢棄處理,

  • All together, it is called the materials economy. Well, I looked into it a little bit more.

    這些通通都稱為物質經濟。 嗯,我曾經更深入地去探究這個系統。

  • In fact, I spent 10 years traveling the world,

    事實上,我花了十年的時間 到世界各地旅遊,

  • tracking where our stuff comes from and where it goes.

    為的就是要追蹤 東西的來源和去處。

  • And you know what I found out? That is not the whole story.

    你知道我發現了什麼? 那就是圖片上顯示的 並非所有的故事,

  • There's a lot missing from this explanation.

    其中還遺漏了很多真相。

  • For one thing, this system looks like it's fine. No problem.

    首先,這套系統看起來很不錯, 沒有問題。

  • But the truth is it’s a system in crisis.

    事實上這系統正處於危機之中,

  • And the reason it is in crisis is that it is a linear system

    理由是這是個線性系統,

  • and we live on a finite planet

    而我們居住的地方 是個有限的星球,

  • and you can not run a linear system on a finite planet indefinitely.

    你不能在有限的星球上 無限期地運作線性的系統。

  • Every step along the way, this system is interacting with the real world.

    這套線性系統在以上所說的每一 個步驟,都與真實的世界互動,

  • In real life it’s not happening on a blank white page.

    現實生活中它並非是空白的,

  • It’s interacting with societies, cultures, economies, the environment.

    它與社會、文化、經濟 和環境都有關,

  • And all along the way, it’s bumping up against limits.

    可是它的每一個階段卻與 極限互相砥觸。

  • Limits we don't see here because the diagram is incomplete.

    我們在此處看不到極限是因為 這張圖解不夠完整。

  • So lets go back through, let's fill in some of the blanks and see what's missing.

    所以我們要回到原點從新檢視, 把空白處填滿,然後看看我們 還遺漏了什麼。

  • Well, one of the most important things its missing is people, yes people.

    好,這裡有一樣很重要的東西 被遺漏了--人,是的,人。

  • People live and work all along this system.

    人的生活和工作與這套系統 都有關係,

  • And some people in this system matter a little more than others;

    可是在這系統裡的某些人,他們 比一般人還要來得有影響力,

  • Some have a little more say. Who are they?

    講的話較有份量,他們是誰呢?

  • Well, let’s start with the government.

    那麼,就先從政府說起。

  • Now my friends tell me I should use a tank to symbolize the government

    我的朋友告訴我應該 用坦克比喻成政府,

  • and that’s true in many countries and increasingly in our own,

    對某些國家而言這是事實, 對美國來說更是如此,

  • after all more than 50% of our federal tax money is now going to the military,

    畢竟,我們國家超過百分之五十的 聯邦稅全用在軍事上。

  • but I’m using a person to symbolize the government

    這裡我用人來比喻政府,

  • because I hold true to the vision and values that governments should be

    是因為我仍然確信政府 存在的價值

  • of the people, by the people, for the people.

    就是民有、民治和民享。

  • It's the governments job to watch out for us, to take care of us. That’s their job.

    政府的工作就是照顧老百姓, 關心老百姓,那是他們的職責。

  • Then along came the corporation.

    然而這套系統產生了財團,

  • Now, the reason the corporation looks bigger than the government

    圖片中我把財團畫的比政府大,

  • is that the corporation is bigger than the government.

    理由是財團勢力的確比政府大。

  • Of the 100 largest economies on earth now, 51 are corporations.

    目前地球上最大的一百個 經濟體中,有五十一個是財團。

  • As the corporations have grown in size and power, weve seen a little change in the government

    隨著財團的規模和勢力的成長, 我們發現政府也有些改變,

  • where theyre a little more concerned in making sure

    也就是說政府愈來愈

  • everything is working out for those guys than for us.

    在乎財團而不管老百姓的死活。

  • OK, so lets see what else is missing from this picture.

    好吧,讓我們再看看這張圖片 還遺漏了什麼?

  • We'll start with extraction.

    先從原料開採說起。

  • which is a fancy word for natural resource exploitation

    所謂的原料開採, 其實就是剝削自然資源、

  • which is a fancy word for trashing the planet.

    破壞地球生態。

  • What this looks like is we chop down trees, we blow up mountains to get the metals inside,

    看看這裡,我們砍伐樹木、 炸山挖礦、

  • we use up all the water and we wipe out the animals.

    用光水源、和獵殺動物。

  • So here we are running up against our first limit.

    在這裡我們正在快速消耗 我們的第一個極限,

  • We are running out of resources. We are using too much stuff.

    也就是耗盡自然資源。 我們消耗太多的東西,

  • Now I know this can be hard to hear, but it's the truth weve gotta deal with it.

    我知道這令人難以置信, 但這是事實我們不得不面對它。

  • In the past three decades alone,

    在過去三十年來,

  • one-third of the planet’s natural resources base have been consumed. Gone.

    我們就消耗了地球上三分之一的 自然基本資源──全用光了。

  • We are cutting and mining and hauling and trashing the place so fast

    由於快速地濫砍、濫採、 濫捕和濫丟的結果,

  • that were undermining the planet’s very ability for people to live here.

    我們已經危害了 地球維持人類生存的能力。

  • Where I live, in the United States, we have less than 4% of our original forests left.

    我所居住的美國,全國 剩下不到百分之四的原始森林,

  • Forty percent of the waterways have become undrinkable.

    百分之四十的河川水道 已變得不可飲用。

  • And our problem is not just that were using too much stuff,

    而且我們的問題 不只是消耗太多的東西,

  • but were using more than our share. We have 5% of the world’s population

    還在於我們用的 遠比我們應得的還要多。 譬如美國占全世界人口的5%,

  • but were consuming 30% of the world’s resources and creating 30% of the world’s waste.

    卻消耗世界上30%的資源,同時 也製造了世界上30%的垃圾。

  • If everybody consumed at U.S. rates, we would need 3 to 5 planets.

    假如每個人都按照美國人的消費 速率,我們需要三到五個地球,

  • And you know what? Weve only got one.

    可是你知道嗎? 我們只有一個地球。

  • So, my country’s response to this limitation is simply to go take somebody else’s!

    然而我的國家對有限資源的回應 是,只要到別的國家拿就有了。

  • This is the Third World, whichsome would say

    看這是第三世界,有些人會說

  • is another word for our stuff that somehow got on someone else’s land.

    它是我們東西的另一代名詞, 言外之意就是要東西就想辦法 到別的國家取回來,

  • So what does that look like? The same thing: trashing the place.

    那樣結局又如何?同樣的戲碼 不停地上演,就是:破壞土地。

  • 75% of global fisheries now are fished at or beyond capacity.

    目前全球75%的漁場 被過度捕撈。

  • 80% of the planet’s original forests are gone.

    全球80%的原始森林 被砍伐殆盡。

  • In the Amazon alone, were losing 2000 trees a minute.

    光是在亞馬遜, 我們每分鐘就失去兩千棵樹,

  • That is seven football fields a minute.

    也就是每分鐘失去7個 足球場面積的森林。

  • And what about the people who live here?

    那麼當地居民又該怎麼辦?

  • Well. According to these guys, they don’t own these resources

    好的,根據這些胖子的看法, 那些人並不擁有當地的資源,

  • even if theyve been living there for generations, they don’t own the means of production

    即使他們已住在那裡好幾代。 他們沒有生產的能力,

  • and theyre not buying a lot of stuff. And in this system,

    也沒有購買力, 在這套系統裡,

  • if you don’t own or buy a lot of stuff, you don’t have value.

    假如你沒有東西或買不起東西, 你就是廢物一個。

  • So, next, the materials move toproductionand what happens there is we use energy

    那麼,下一步就是把原料移到 「生產」,看看我們如何利用

  • to mix toxic chemicals in with the natural resources to make toxic contaminated products.

    能源將化學毒物與自然資源混在 一起,以製成有毒的污染產品。

  • There are over 100,000 synthetic chemicals in use in commerce today.

    今日市面上有超過 十萬種合成化學品,

  • Only a handful of them have even been tested for health impacts

    其中只有少數的化學物質作過 對人體健康影響的測試,

  • and NONE have been tested for synergistic health impacts,

    然而沒有一個曾測試過與其他化 學物質混合後的協同健康效應,

  • that means when they interact with all the other chemicals were exposed to every day.

    也就是說,當這些物質與我們每 天都在暴露的化學物質交互作用 後,對我們健康的影響。

  • So, we don’t know the full impact on health and the environment of all these toxic chemicals.

    所以,我們不知道所有這些毒物 對我們健康與環境的完整影響。

  • But we do know one thing: Toxics in, Toxics Out.

    但我們很肯定的是: 毒物進,毒物出。

  • As long as we keep putting toxics into our inudstrial production systems,

    只要我們持續把毒物放進 我們的生產系統中,

  • we are going to keep getting toxics in the stuff that we bring

    我們就會持續不斷地將有毒的 東西帶回家裡、

  • into our homes, and workplaces, and schools. And, duh, our bodies.

    帶回工作場所裡和學校裡,更 糟糕的是,帶進我們的身體裡。

  • Like BFRs, brominated flame retardants.

    例如BFRs,溴化阻燃劑,

  • They are a chemical that make things more fireproof but they are super toxic.

    就是用來讓東西更耐火燒的 化學品,它們可是超級毒物。

  • Theyre a neurotoxinthat means toxic to the brain What are we even doing using a chemical like this?

    它們是一種神經毒素──意思就 是這種毒素會毒害人腦。我們為 何還要使用這樣的化學物質呢?

  • Yet we put them in our computers, our appliances, couches, mattresses, even some pillows.

    然而,我們仍然把這些毒素 放到我們的電腦裡、器材裡、 座椅裡、床墊裡,甚至枕頭裡。

  • In fact, we take our pillows, we douse them in a neurotoxin

    事實上,我們買的枕頭, 有些是浸泡到神經毒素裡,

  • and then we bring them home and put our heads on them for 8 hours a night to sleep.

    我們買回家,每天晚上 把頭放在枕頭上睡上八小時;

  • Now, I don’t know, but it seems to me that in this country with so much potential,

    現在我還不知道會對人體 怎麼樣,但對我來說, 既然我們的國家這麼厲害,

  • we could think of a better way to stop our heads from catching on fire at night.

    應該能夠想出更好的辦法來避免 我們的腦袋瓜子晚上被火燒吧?

  • Now these toxics build up in the food chain and concentrate in our bodies.

    這些毒素會累積到食物鏈裡, 然後濃縮在我們的身體裡。

  • Do you know what is the food at the top of the food chain

    你知道是什麼食物位於 食物鏈的最頂層,

  • with the highest level of many toxic contaminants? Human breast milk.

    而含有最高濃度的眾多 毒性污染物?是人類的母奶。

  • That means that we have reached a point where the smallest members of our societies - our babies

    那就是說人類社會中最小的成員 也中獎了,我們的嬰兒在他們的

  • are getting their highest lifetime dose of toxic chemicals from breastfeeding from their mothers.

    黃金時期就已經從母乳中吸進了 他一生中劑量最高的化學毒素,

  • Is that not an incredible violation?

    這是多麼可怕的入侵啊!

  • Breastfeeding must be the most fundamental human act of nurturing;

    餵母乳是人類最基本的餵養行為,

  • it should be sacred and safe. Now breastfeeding is still best

    它必須神聖又安全的。 餵母乳仍然是最好的,

  • and mothers should definitely keep breastfeeding, but we should protect it. They should protect it.

    媽媽們當然應該持續地餵母乳, 不過我們應該保護它, 政府更應該負起保護責任,

  • I thought they were looking out for us. And of course,

    我認為政府更要為我們把關。

  • the people who bear the biggest of these toxic chemicals

    當然,首當其衝的就是 面對這化學毒素的工人,

  • are the factory workers, many of whom are women of reproductive age.

    其中占大多數的就是 生育期的婦女,

  • Theyre working with reproductive toxics, carcinogens and more.

    她們正值生育期就要與這些 生殖毒素、致癌物質等共舞。

  • Now, I ask you, what kind of woman of reproductive age

    現在我問你, 什麼樣的生育期婦女

  • would work in a job exposed to reproductive toxics,

    會在充斥著生殖毒素的 場所中工作?

  • except for a woman with no other option? And that is one of thebeautiesof this system?

    當然就是那些毫無選擇的婦女。 這難道不是這套系統 的一種「美麗陷井」?

  • The erosion of local environments and economies here

    它讓當地環境和經濟受到腐蝕,

  • ensures a constant supply of people with no other option.

    使得那兒的人們別無選擇, 只好持續進入這系統為其服務。

  • Globally 200,000 people a day are moving from environments

    全球每天約有二十萬人離開了

  • that have sustained them for generations,

    已生養他們好幾世代的故土,

  • into cities, many to live in slums, looking for work, no matter how toxic that work may be.

    而遷移到城市裡, 很多人都住在貧民窟裡, 找工作,也不管工作多麼毒。

  • So, you see, it is not just resources that are wasted along this system,

    所以你看到了吧,按照這套 系統運作,不只資源被浪費了,

  • but people too. Whole communities get wasted.

    人也被毀了, 整個社區都被毀了。

  • Yup, toxics in, toxics out.

    是的,毒物進,毒物出。

  • A lot of the toxics leave the factories in products,

    很多的毒素隨著產品離開工廠,

  • but even more leave as by-products, or pollution. And it’s a lot of pollution.

    但是還有更多的毒素以副產物 或污染的型式離開工廠, 而這裡也有很多的污染。

  • In the U.S., our industry admits to releasing over 4 billion pounds of toxic chemicals a year

    在美國,工業界承認每年排放 的化學毒素超過40億磅,

  • and it’s probably way more since that is only what they admit.

    事實上他們可能排放更多, 因為這只是他們承認的排放量。

  • So that’s another limit, because, yuck,

    所以這又是另一種極限, 因為,噁,

  • who wants to look at and smell 4 billion pounds of toxic chemicals a year? So, what do they do?

    誰要看到或聞到每年40億磅的 化學毒素呢?因此, 他們做了什麼呢?

  • Move the dirty factories overseas Pollute someone else’s land!

    把這些工廠移到海外去, 去污染別人的土地吧!

  • But surprise, a lot of that air pollution is coming right back at us, carried by wind currents.

    然而更驚人的是,那些大量的 空氣污染又隨著風向直撲回來。

  • So, what happens after all these resources are turned into products?

    那麼,在這些資源變成商品後, 又發生了什麼事呢?

  • Well, it moves here, for distribution.

    好的,箭頭移到這裡, 那就是分配行銷。

  • Now distribution meansselling all this toxic-contaminated junk as quickly as possible.”

    這裡所說的分配行銷,是指 「儘快地把這些有毒污染垃圾 全部賣光。」

  • The goal here is to keep the prices down, keep the people buying, and keep the inventory moving.

    這裡的目標就是壓低產品的 價格,持續人們的購買力 和維持貨物的流通。

  • How do they keep the prices down? Well, they don’t pay the store workers very much

    他們如何壓低價格呢?嗯, 他們付店員很低的薪資,

  • and they skimp on health insurance every time they can. It’s all about externalizing the costs.

    而且每次都儘可能縮減健保費, 這些統稱為成本外部化,

  • What that means is the real costs of making stuff aren’t captured in the price.

    意思就是製造產品的真正成本 並沒有包括在價格裡。

  • In other words, we aren’t paying for the stuff we buy.

    換句話說,我們並沒有付出 真正的代價來買這些東西。

  • I was thinking about this the other day.

    最近我在思考這個問題。

  • I was walking and I wanted to listen to the news

    我走路去上班時, 正好也想聽聽新聞,

  • so I popped into a Radio Shack to buy a radio.

    於是我就衝進一家叫做 Radio Shack的電子連鎖店, 想買一台收音機,

  • I found this cute little green radio for 4 dollars and 99 cents.

    我發現這台小巧又可愛的綠色 收音機只要美金四塊九毛九。

  • I was standing there in line to buy this thing and I was thinking

    當我正要排隊付錢時,我在想

  • how could $4.99 possibly capture the costs

    四塊九毛九怎麼夠付這台 收音機的製造成本和運輸費,

  • of making this radio and getting it into my hands? The metal was probably mined in South Africa,

    然後再賣到我手上?金屬 可能是在南非的礦山裡挖的,

  • the petroleum was probably drilled in Iraq, the plastics were probably produced in China,

    石油可能是在伊拉克的油田裡鑽 的,塑膠可能是在中國製造的,

  • and maybe the whole thing was assembled by some 15 year old in a maquiladora in Mexico.

    而整台機組可能是墨西哥血汗工 廠裡的15歲童工組裝而成的。

  • $4.99 wouldn’t even pay the rent for the shelf space it occupied until I came along,

    四塊九毛九甚至連付 上架空間的租金也不夠,

  • let alone part of the staff guy’s salary who helped me pick it out,

    更別談支付幫我把 這東西挑出來的店員薪水,

  • or the multiple ocean cruises and truck rides pieces of this radio went on.

    或是跨過好幾個海洋的運費, 還有卡車載運費。

  • That’s how I realized, I didn’t pay for the radio. So, who did pay?

    我終於明白,我並沒有付出真正 的代價。那麼,是誰付出了代價?

  • Well. These people paid with the loss of their natural resource base.

    沒錯,就是這些失去 自然資源基礎的人買單的,

  • These people paid with the loss of their clean air with increasing asthma and cancer rates.

    這些人失去了乾淨的空氣,氣喘 和癌症的罹患率也因而大增。

  • Kids in the Congo paid with their future – 30% of the kids in parts of the Congo

    剛果的小孩付出他們的未來, 剛果的某些地區有30%的小孩

  • now have had to drop out of school to mine coltan,

    必須輟學去挖鈳鉭鐵礦,

  • a metal we need for our cheap and disposable electronics.

    這種金屬就是用來做廉價的 可拋式電子產品。

  • These people even paid, by having to cover their own health insurance.

    這些人付出的代價不只如此, 他們還得給付自己的健保費。

  • All along this system, people pitched in so I could get this radio for $4.99.

    按照這套系統一路下來, 由於這些人的貢獻,我才能花 四塊九毛九買到這台收音機。

  • And none of these contributions are recorded in any accounts book.

    然而這些貢獻卻沒有算在 這東西的帳簿裡,

  • That is what I mean by the company owners externalize the true costs of production.

    這就是我說的,公司老闆把 產品的真實成本外部化了。

  • And that brings us to the golden arrow of consumption.

    接下來讓我們 來看消費這個火車頭。

  • This is the heart of the system, the engine that drives it.

    消費是這套系統的核心, 是驅動的引擎。

  • It is so important that protecting this arrow has become the top priority for both of these guys.

    保護這個火車頭,對這些胖子而 言,是首要之務,因為消費對維 持這個爛系統來說,太重要了。

  • That is why, after 9/11, when our country was in shock,

    這也就是為什麼,911之後, 當美國受到震嚇時,

  • and President Bush could have suggested any number of appropriate things:

    布希總統原可建議 很多適當的事情來安撫民心:

  • to grieve, to pray, to hope. NO. He said to shop. TO SHOP?!

    像是表達哀慟、祈禱、與盼望, 但這些他都沒說,他只告訴人們 說「去買東西吧。」買東西?!

  • We have become a nation of consumers. Our primary identity has become that of being consumers,

    我們已成為一個消費王國,現在 消費者已成為我們最主要的身份,

  • not mothers, teachers, farmers, but consumers.

    而非大家所熟悉的母親、老師 或是農夫,而是消費者。

  • The primary way that our value is measured and demonstrated

    現在,這個社會衡量我們 有多少價值,證明我們 有多少價值的主要方式,

  • is by how much we contribute to this arrow, how much we consume. And do we!

    是看我們為這個火車頭帶來 多少動力,看我們消費了多少; 而我們自己竟然也是如此做。

  • We shop and shop and shop. Keep the materials flowing, And flow they do!

    我們不停地買東西呀、買東西、買 東西!只是為了維持貨物流通。而 地球資源也確實不停地被消耗著。

  • Guess what percentage of total materials flow through this system is still in product or use 6 months after the date of sale in North America?

    猜猜看,在產品於北美洲售出半年 後,為了讓我們擁有這些產品而

  • Fifty percent? Twenty? NO. One percent. One! In other words, 99 percent of the stuff

    透過這系統所投入的物質總量, 還有多少比例留在產品中或 在使用中?

  • we harvest, mine, process, transport – 99 percent of the stuff we run through this system

    百分之五十?二十?都不是, 只剩百分之一而已,百分之一! 換句話說,

  • is trashed within 6 months. Now how can we run a planet

    我們所開採、加工處理、和運輸 的物質,我們用來運作這套系統 的東西,有百分之九十九

  • with that level of materials throughput? It wasn’t always like this.

    在產品售出後6個月時, 早已成為垃圾。我們怎麼可能用

  • The average U.S. person now consumes twice as much as they did 50 years ago.

    這種物質產出率來經營地球呢? 我們並不是一直都這樣的。

  • Ask your grandma. In her day, stewardship and resourcefulness and thrift were valued.

    目前美國人的平均消費 是五十年前的兩倍。

  • So, how did this happen? Well, it didn’t just happen. It was designed.

    問問你的老祖母,在她的年代 裡,愛物惜物和節約簡樸都是 被珍惜的價值。

  • Shortly after the World War 2, these guys were figuring out how to ramp up the economy.

    那麼,這到底是如何發生的呢? 這不是就這麼發生的, 而是被設計過。

  • Retailing analyst Victor Lebow articulated the solution

    二次世界大戰之後不久, 這些胖子就在算計 如何榨取美國的經濟。

  • that has become the norm for the whole system.

    零售商分析專家 維克多‧李博 提出了明確的解決之道,

  • He said: "Our enormously productive economy demands that we make consumption our way of life,

    他的辦法後來也成為 這套系統的基準。

  • that we convert the buying and use of goods into rituals, that we seek our spiritual satisfaction,

    他說:「我們龐大的生產經濟體 需要讓消費成為我們的生活模式,

  • our ego satisfaction, in consumption.

    也就是把購買和使用物品 轉換成一種習慣,

  • We need things consumed, burned up, replaced and discarded at an ever-accelerating rate.”

    在消費中達到精神滿足 和自我滿足...

  • President Eisenhower's Council of Economic Advisors Chairman said

    我們需要以一直在加快的速率, 消費、燃燒、更換和拋棄東西。」

  • that "The American economy's ultimate purpose is to produce more consumer goods."

    美國總統艾森豪的 經濟顧問委員會主席曾說過:

  • MORE CONSUMER GOODS?

    「美國經濟的最終目的 是製造更多的消費產品。」

  • Our ultimate purpose? Not provide health care, or education, or safe transportation,

    更多的消費產品???

  • or sustainability or justice? Consumer goods?

    我們「經濟」的最終目的? 不是提供健康照護、教育、 或是安全的交通運輸、

  • How did they get us to jump on board this program so enthusiastically?

    或是永續經營、或是正義? 而是提供消費產品?

  • Well, two of their most effective strategies are planned obsolescence and perceived obsolescence.

    他們如何讓我們這麼熱切地 搭上這班消費列車呢?

  • Planned obsolescence is another word fordesigned for the dump.”

    嗯,他們最有效的兩項策略是 計劃過時和認知過時。

  • It means they actually make stuff to be useless as quickly as possible

    計劃過時另一種說法就是 「為丟棄而設計」;

  • so we will chuck it and buy a new one.

    也就是讓東西儘快變成 沒有用的廢物,

  • It’s obvious with things like plastic bags and coffee cups, but now it’s even big stuff:

    所以我們會把它丟棄, 然後再買另一個新的廢物。

  • mops, DVDs, cameras, barbeques even, everything! Even computers.

    很明顯的東西像是 塑膠袋和咖啡杯, 現在連更重要的東西也如此:

  • Have you noticed that when you buy a computer now,

    如拖把啊、DVD、照相機、甚至 是烤肉架,每樣東西都這樣。 連電腦也是。

  • the technology is changing so fast that in just a couple years,

    你有沒有注意到 現在當你買一台新電腦時,

  • it’s actually an impediment to communication? I was curious about this

    由於科技日新月異,只 要一兩年的時間,

  • so I opened up a big desktop computer to see what was inside. And I found out

    你的新電腦馬上就礙手礙腳了。 我對此很好奇,

  • that the piece that changes each year is just a tiny little piece in the corner.

    所以我把電腦蓋打開 看看裡面到底是什麼?我發現

  • But you can’t just change that one piece, because each new version is a different shape,

    每年改變的東西是 藏在角落裡的一小塊東西。

  • so you gotta chuck the whole thing and buy a new one.

    但是你不能單單換那塊東西, 因為每種新版本都有不同的形狀,

  • So, I was reading industrial design journals from the 1950s when planned obsolescence

    你必須把整台電腦丟棄, 然後再買一台新的。

  • was really catching on. These designers are so open about it.

    的確,我曾讀過一篇文章, 引用了1950年代計劃過時 流行時的工業設計期刊。

  • They actually discuss how fast can they make stuff break

    這些設計師是如此地公開露骨,

  • that still leaves the consumer having enough faith in the product

    他們真的在討論 如何讓東西快速地壞掉,

  • to go out and buy anther one. It was so intentional.

    並且讓消費者 仍然對產品有信心,

  • But stuff cannot break fast enough to keep this arrow afloat,

    然後再去買另一種東西, 這樣的意圖再明顯不過了。

  • so there’s alsoperceived obsolescence.”

    然而東西損毀的速度仍不足以 讓這消費火車頭飛奔,

  • Now perceived obsolescence convinces us to throw away stuff that is still perfectly useful.

    所以還要搭配「認知過時」。

  • How do they do that? Well, they change the way the stuff looks

    所謂「認知過時」, 是要說服我們把完好無缺 仍可使用的東西丟棄不用。

  • so if you bought your stuff a couple years ago,

    他們是怎麼辦到的呢? 好的,他們先改變東西的外觀,

  • everyone can tell that you haven’t contributed to this arrow recently

    假如你一兩年前買的東西 到現在還在使用的話,

  • and since the way we demonstrate our value is contributing to this arrow, it can be embarrassing

    每個人都可分辨出你 最近還沒去買新的,

  • Like I’ve have had the same fat white computer monitor

    而由於我們證明自己價值的方式 就是靠消費,因此如果沒有去買 新的跟上流行,會是很丟臉的事。

  • on my desk for 5 years. My co-worker just got a new computer.

    比如我的桌上還擺著一台用了 五年白色胖嘟嘟的電腦螢幕,

  • She has a flat, shiny, sleek monitor.

    我的同事剛買了一台新電腦,

  • It matches her computer, it matches her phone, even her pen stand.

    她的螢幕就是那種 扁平閃閃發亮的型式,

  • She looks like she is driving in space ship central and I,

    和她的電腦主機、電話, 甚至連筆筒也很速配。

  • I look like I have a washing machine on my desk.

    她看起來就像在航太中心 駕駛太空船一樣,

  • Fashion is another prime example of this. Have you ever wondered why women’s shoe heels

    而我的看起來就像 桌上擺了一台洗衣機。

  • go from fat one year to skinny the next to fat to skinny? It is not because there is some debate

    流行又是另一個活生生的例子。 你有沒有想過女人的鞋跟為何

  • about which heel structure is the most healthy for women’s feet. It’s because wearing fat heels

    一年流行矮跟另一年又流行高跟? 這不是因為有人在爭論那一種

  • in a skinny heel year shows everybody that you haven’t contributed to that arrow recently

    鞋跟構造對女人的腳部最健康, 而是因為